From 9ebfd98a7a912309375c54c0108e49920910006b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Andrew Morgan <1342360+anoadragon453@users.noreply.github.com> Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2021 16:33:47 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] Apply suggestions from code review Co-authored-by: Alexey Rusakov --- proposals/2403-knock.md | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/proposals/2403-knock.md b/proposals/2403-knock.md index 9972c04c..e96705ea 100644 --- a/proposals/2403-knock.md +++ b/proposals/2403-knock.md @@ -549,7 +549,7 @@ power level to send it. This is a problem that currently affects other, similar operations, such as disinviting or unbanning a federated user. In both cases, they won't be notified as their homeserver is not in the room. -While we could send easily send the leave event as part of a generic +While we could easily send the leave event as part of a generic transaction to the remote homeserver, that homeserver would have no way to validate the `prev_events` and `auth_events` that the event references. We could send those events over as well, but those will also reference other @@ -601,7 +601,7 @@ knock. # Potential issues This new feature would allow users to send events into rooms that they don't -partake in. That is why this proposal enables the a `knock` join rule, in +partake in. That is why this proposal enables the `knock` join rule, in order to allow room admins to opt in to this behaviour. # Alternatives