From 6816a0538e152ebe61a8c5c6c124a31599575639 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: tusooa Date: Sat, 20 May 2023 16:30:12 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] Add alternatives Signed-off-by: tusooa --- proposals/4019-encrypted-relationships.md | 6 +++++- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/proposals/4019-encrypted-relationships.md b/proposals/4019-encrypted-relationships.md index 16e06d9e47f..1c5f311cd4f 100644 --- a/proposals/4019-encrypted-relationships.md +++ b/proposals/4019-encrypted-relationships.md @@ -36,7 +36,11 @@ want to send the `m.relates_to` in the cleartext part. ## Alternatives -Not known. +We could also just let the clients to decide (maybe by user's preferences) whether to send `m.relates_to` +in the encrypted payload, ignoring the state event. At the first look, this alternative approach leads to +arguably better privacy. However, it lacks interoperability, because users would need to explain to +others how to tweak the settings for those having a conversation with them. And if the other users in the +room do not know how to turn this option on, it actually has worse privacy than my proposal. ## Security considerations