Filip/matrix-spec
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-spec synced 2026-03-20 02:14:10 +01:00
Code Issues Actions 1 Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Mention why auth difference are useful

Browse source
This commit is contained in:
Erik Johnston 2018-08-02 14:42:36 +01:00
parent 9af5ecd080
commit fa70e3e486
1 changed files with 8 additions and 2 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

10
proposals/1442-state-resolution.md
View file

@ -160,6 +160,14 @@ e.g. bans before events sent in other forks. (However events can point to old
parts of the DAG, for a variety of reasons, and ideally in that case the parts of the DAG, for a variety of reasons, and ideally in that case the
resolved state would closely match the recent state). resolved state would closely match the recent state).
Similarly care should be taken when multiple changes to e.g. power levels happen
in a fork. If Alice gives Bob power (A), then Bob gives Charlie power (B) and
then Charlie, say, changes the ban level (C). If you try and resolve two state
sets one of which has A and the other has C, C will not pass auth unless B is
also taken into account. This case can be handled if we also consider the
difference in auth chains between the two sets, which in the previous example
would include B.
## Power Level Ordering ## Power Level Ordering
@ -362,8 +370,6 @@ the resolution and so the join would be rejected.
The changes to the current model that would be required to make the above The changes to the current model that would be required to make the above
assumptions true would be, for example: assumptions true would be, for example:
1. By default permissions are closed. 1. By default permissions are closed.
1. Bans would need to be a list in either the join rules event or a separate 1. Bans would need to be a list in either the join rules event or a separate
event type which all membership events pointed to. event type which all membership events pointed to.