MSC2233: Unauthenticated Capabilities API #2233

anoadragon453 · 2019-08-15T15:17:17Z

turt2live · 2019-08-15T15:54:17Z

(labelled for WIP)

If the server advertises that it supports doing so This version uses a random me.dbkr prefix until the MSC is written. Requires matrix-org/matrix-js-sdk#1017 Implements matrix-org/matrix-spec-proposals#2233

proposals/2233-unauthed-capabilities-endpoint.md

Co-Authored-By: Richard van der Hoff <1389908+richvdh@users.noreply.github.com>

richvdh · 2019-08-16T11:55:16Z

proposals/2233-unauthed-capabilities-endpoint.md

@@ -0,0 +1,58 @@
+# Unauthenticated Capabilities API


I'm a bit concerned about the proliferation of 'features' endpoints (/versions, /_matrix/client/r0/capabilities/server, /_matrix/client/r0/capabilities/user, /_matrix/media/r0/config): the main concern being that it's not obvious what goes where.

Indeed, ISTR the main driver for /_matrix/client/r0/capabilities as opposed to /versions was that it required authentication...

I was going to say that putting feature capabilities on /versions doesn't make sense given the name, but then I realized we're already doing that :|

These things could be added to /versions then if we think that that's not too weird.

I agree with @richvdh that we have far too many endpoints for similar things, although I was never really onboard with putting features inside /versions.

To be honest I wish we had just named them something like /_matrix/${apiname}/config/ so it was at least consistent.

If we could go back in time, I wish we hadn't polluted /versions.

/versions features an unstable_features key which is supposed to be used for additional features that the server supported which are not included in the spec. The examples described in this MSC do not fit these terms.

We could add another key, like config, which would be general enough to hold random public configuration values the server has decided to set up.

Or we can move it to its own API. With regards to this MSC, I think it'd be easy enough to say whether information should go in /versions, /_matrix/client/r0/capabilities/*, or /_matrix/media/r0/config.

And then deciding between capabilities/server and capabilities/user would just be "does this information need to either rely on a user, or is potentially sensitive"? Then it goes in /user, otherwise /server.

Do we actually have a strong use case for this MSC at all? If this MSC also had a capability it wanted to add then we could discuss the merits of that capability in the context of a new API vs some other solution. Without an example, the distinction between the endpoints is unclear and seems to be building a framework for a feature we don't know if we even want.

If we don't have an example for this API, this MSC should be put on the backburner or closed until we need it imo. I also have general concerns with an unauthenticated version of the endpoint because the cases presented thus far are better solved in other ways.

proposals/2233-unauthed-capabilities-endpoint.md

richvdh · 2019-08-16T11:58:05Z

proposals/2233-unauthed-capabilities-endpoint.md

+useful, there are use cases that could benefit from this API being called
+from an unauthenticated user as well. For instance, information that a user
+would like to know about a server before they sign up. Such as whether the
+server sends message content through a media-scanner, or whether the server


sends message content through a media-scanner

is this really a thing that is better exposed over an API than described in a policy document for a human to read?

I can still see a usecase for values that sites may want to pull and present their own filtering for.

richvdh · 2019-08-16T11:58:24Z

proposals/2233-unauthed-capabilities-endpoint.md

+from an unauthenticated user as well. For instance, information that a user
+would like to know about a server before they sign up. Such as whether the
+server sends message content through a media-scanner, or whether the server
+allows E2EE session key backup. A client could query this information before


allows E2EE session key backup

surely this should be under /versions ?

Discussed in #2233 (comment)

…anoa/msc2233

turt2live · 2019-08-16T15:10:02Z

proposals/2233-unauthed-capabilities-endpoint.md

+
+While the ability to scope the capabilities to the requesting user is very
+useful, there are use cases that could benefit from this API being called
+from an unauthenticated user as well. For instance, information that a user


I'm not convinced that any of the examples that follow need a capabilities endpoint.

"We process your data" -> Terms of service acceptance. Could have additional flows for informational things, but this would likely be better served at an advertising page before registration.

"We disallow key backup" -> Advertising for the server before the registration page (it'd be a feature of the service and not something we need to care about in the spec, imo)

Other information at registration time -> UIA while using params to send data along.

Server listing sites -> MSC2063, MSC1929, and/or https://talk.feneas.org/t/serverinfo-specification-for-server-metadata/99

turt2live · 2019-08-16T15:13:32Z

proposals/2233-unauthed-capabilities-endpoint.md

+information about the server's capabilities that would be pertinent to
+non-authenticated users.
+
+The existing `/capabilities` API would be replaced by `/capabilities/user`.


Due to the backwards compatibility section below, it should be deprecated with intent to replace, not replaced.

turt2live · 2019-08-16T15:18:39Z

proposals/2233-unauthed-capabilities-endpoint.md

@@ -0,0 +1,58 @@
+# Unauthenticated Capabilities API


Do we actually have a strong use case for this MSC at all? If this MSC also had a capability it wanted to add then we could discuss the merits of that capability in the context of a new API vs some other solution. Without an example, the distinction between the endpoints is unclear and seems to be building a framework for a feature we don't know if we even want.

If we don't have an example for this API, this MSC should be put on the backburner or closed until we need it imo. I also have general concerns with an unauthenticated version of the endpoint because the cases presented thus far are better solved in other ways.

richvdh · 2019-08-19T18:03:52Z

given that this seems to be looking for a problem to solve, I'm going to close this for now.

MSC2233: init commit

e51634a

anoadragon453 self-assigned this Aug 15, 2019

turt2live added the proposal A matrix spec change proposal label Aug 15, 2019

jryans added phase:1 privacy-sprint Temporary label: privacy-related stuff labels Aug 15, 2019

wip

2c222fd

turt2live mentioned this pull request Aug 15, 2019

Placeholder issue for MSCs that should land prior to the privacy release element-hq/element-web#10574

Closed

6 tasks

dbkr mentioned this pull request Aug 16, 2019

Split getCapabilities into server / user matrix-org/matrix-js-sdk#1017

Closed

dbkr mentioned this pull request Aug 16, 2019

Allow registering with email if no ID Server matrix-org/matrix-react-sdk#3318

Merged

Change to unauthed capabilities

f147b90

anoadragon453 changed the title ~~MSC2233: Expose Homeserver Email Configuration in Registration Parameters~~ MSC2233: Unauthenticated Capabilities API Aug 16, 2019

anoadragon453 marked this pull request as ready for review August 16, 2019 11:29

richvdh reviewed Aug 16, 2019

View reviewed changes

proposals/2233-unauthed-capabilities-endpoint.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

Update proposals/2233-unauthed-capabilities-endpoint.md

9b7d8c2

Co-Authored-By: Richard van der Hoff <1389908+richvdh@users.noreply.github.com>

richvdh reviewed Aug 16, 2019

View reviewed changes

proposals/2233-unauthed-capabilities-endpoint.md Show resolved Hide resolved

richvdh reviewed Aug 16, 2019

View reviewed changes

anoadragon453 added 2 commits August 16, 2019 13:42

Talk about why we didn't just add auth/noauth to capabilities

56af944

Merge branch 'anoa/msc2233' of github.com:matrix-org/matrix-doc into …

d46cf44

…anoa/msc2233

turt2live self-requested a review August 16, 2019 13:30

jryans removed phase:1 privacy-sprint Temporary label: privacy-related stuff labels Aug 16, 2019

turt2live removed their request for review August 16, 2019 15:04

turt2live added the proposal-in-review label Aug 16, 2019

turt2live requested changes Aug 16, 2019

View reviewed changes

richvdh closed this Aug 19, 2019

anoadragon453 mentioned this pull request Aug 19, 2019

Add flag in /versions for whether clients should send id_server params matrix-org/synapse#5868

Merged

turt2live added abandoned A proposal where the author/shepherd is not responsive and removed proposal-in-review labels Aug 19, 2019

turt2live added the kind:feature MSC for not-core and not-maintenance stuff label Apr 20, 2020

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

MSC2233: Unauthenticated Capabilities API #2233

MSC2233: Unauthenticated Capabilities API #2233

anoadragon453 commented Aug 15, 2019 •

edited

Loading

turt2live commented Aug 15, 2019

richvdh Aug 16, 2019

anoadragon453 Aug 16, 2019

Half-Shot Aug 16, 2019

anoadragon453 Aug 16, 2019

turt2live Aug 16, 2019

richvdh Aug 16, 2019

anoadragon453 Aug 16, 2019

richvdh Aug 16, 2019

anoadragon453 Aug 16, 2019

turt2live Aug 16, 2019

turt2live Aug 16, 2019

turt2live Aug 16, 2019

richvdh commented Aug 19, 2019

MSC2233: Unauthenticated Capabilities API #2233

MSC2233: Unauthenticated Capabilities API #2233

Conversation

anoadragon453 commented Aug 15, 2019 • edited Loading

turt2live commented Aug 15, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

richvdh commented Aug 19, 2019

anoadragon453 commented Aug 15, 2019 •

edited

Loading