From 77827814429fd3608c5a3ac96049bb3faa942016 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Richard van der Hoff <1389908+richvdh@users.noreply.github.com> Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2018 10:13:45 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] Update wording to be betterer Co-Authored-By: erikjohnston --- proposals/1442-state-resolution.md | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/proposals/1442-state-resolution.md b/proposals/1442-state-resolution.md index 8eca1c9f..b50612ee 100644 --- a/proposals/1442-state-resolution.md +++ b/proposals/1442-state-resolution.md @@ -474,7 +474,7 @@ Intuitively using rejected events feels dangerous, however: eliminate any potential attack vectors. Rejected auth events are deliberately excluded from use in the iterative auth checks, as -in that case the auth events aren't re-authed like the rest of the events in the +auth events aren't re-authed during the iterative auth checks (although non-auth events are.) list. @@ -549,7 +549,7 @@ This gives the resolved state at _Message 3_ to be _Topic 4_. The following is an example room DAG, where time flows down the page. We assume event `B` is initially rejected by the server (due to not passing auth against -the state, but does pass auth against its auth chain). +the state), but does pass auth against its auth chain. ![state-res-rejected.png](images/state-res-rejected.png)