Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

MSC3244: Room version capabilities #3244

Closed
Changes from 7 commits
Commits
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension

Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
137 changes: 137 additions & 0 deletions proposals/3244-room-version-capabilities.md
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,137 @@
# MSC3244: Room version capabilities
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I might be missing something, but I don't see why this data needs to come from the server. Standard room version capabilities don't vary across servers, so the supported features can just be hardcoded into clients. Only the list of supported room versions will vary, but that data is already available from the endpoint.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

yea... I'm not seeing what this is trying to accomplish. Room versions are meant to be frozen sets of functionality, particularly at the spec level, and not mutated over time. If someone were to create a com.example.my_room_version they'd almost certainly have to figure out a nested versioning scheme because once used the room version can't change behaviour.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Currently cients never require a specific room version, and created room are using the default version at the time of creation.

If clients start hard coding room version, they will need to be continuously updated to be up to date. E.g if the default room version is updated (for security reason), the clients will force lower room version

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think the idea isn't whether or not the client specifies the room version, but that the clients would encode the information in them for what features a room version supports.

The argument against this is that the servers have to know this already (e.g. Synapse's implementation), so instead of hard-coding it into each client the server could pass the information to the client.

Maybe that's over-designed though and the proper thing is to codify a similar list in the clients?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The issue with having a list in the clients is that it can get outdated. If I'm running an old client, and the server says that the default room version is "10", but the client doesn't know what room version "10" is, then it doesn't know if a room created with the default version will support knocking, or if it should specify that it wants room version "7".

Arguably, clients shouldn't be doing anything with room versions that they don't understand, but since most of the room version changes are server-side things, clients have been mostly fine just assuming that everything is (almost) the same.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The server can't really be sure it's suggesting the right values though? If a client is developed with v8 in mind, it's not going to really know if v10 will also serve its purpose, and the server definitely won't know how the client expects to function.

Room versions are non-linear, so in a hypothetical (and possibly likely down the line) scenario we could have v8 for knocking, v9 for enforced encryption, v10 for newfangled knocking+restricted cooperation, and v11 which mixes it all together. In this case, the client will want a feature called "knocking" but doesn't know that v10/11 are actually some completely new approach it has never heard of. It'd be irresponsible of the server to suggest this as a preferred version, but also it's not immediately clear what we'd do given it's keyed by feature name. Further, the server suggesting v11 could impact the user experience of the client even if the client did know about v10 (but not 11): it may very well not want to have encryption baked into the room, but the server will have suggested an unknown room version for new-knocking.

Overall, I do seriously wonder if this can be solved with process rather than tech. If we sped up the room version cutting process, would it alleviate the concerns of this MSC? Can we find a non-technical answer to communicating what is in a given room version and drive uptake?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
# MSC3244: Room version capabilities
# MSC3244: Extending room version capabilities to give details of room version features


When a new room version is introduced there is a delay before it becames the default
version. This delay is related to support of this new room version across the federation.
If a Home Server were to switch the new version as default to early, it will lock out all other users
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
If a Home Server were to switch the new version as default to early, it will lock out all other users
If a homeserver were to switch the new version as default to early, it will lock out all other users

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

applies throughout

that are on Home Servers that do not understand this version.

But however the new room version might add an interesting feature that some client on some Home
Servers might want to use earlier. One solution might be for the client to explicitly request a
version when creating a room but it's a bad practice to force a room version.

If the client is forcing a room version, and server side a new version is added (that support the needed
feature) the client will still use the old one until it's updated.

As an example v7 is introducing `knock` but it's not default yet, it would be nice for client to
start using it until it is supported by the default version and to also use the latest stable version that
supports this feature in the future.

The goal of this MSC is to give the client a way to have more information on the supported features of room
versions available on a given server, to give more feedback to users during room creation as well as
in the room settings section.

## Proposal

The __m.room_versions capability__ [`/_matrix/client/r0/capabilities`]([https://matrix.org/docs/spec/client_server/r0.6.1#m-room-versions-capability])
endpoint could be decorated to provide more information on room version capabilities.
Comment on lines +25 to +26
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Malformed link/text here.

Suggested change
The __m.room_versions capability__ [`/_matrix/client/r0/capabilities`]([https://matrix.org/docs/spec/client_server/r0.6.1#m-room-versions-capability])
endpoint could be decorated to provide more information on room version capabilities.
The [`m.room_versions capability`](https://matrix.org/docs/spec/client_server/r0.6.1#m-room-versions-capability)
of the `/_matrix/client/r0/capabilities` endpoint could be decorated to provide more information on room version
capabilities.


Actual capabilities response:
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think you mean 'Current'.

Suggested change
Actual capabilities response:
Current capabilities response:

````
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
````
```json

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

likewise below

{
"capabilities": {
"m.room_versions": {
"default": "6",
"available": {
"1": "stable",
"2": "stable",
"3": "stable",
"4": "stable",
"5": "stable",
"6": "stable",
"org.matrix.msc2176": "unstable",
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

is it deliberate that these unstable room versions are removed in the below example?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

kind of, the below example is the future compared to that one, but it was also to reduce noise

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

okay, then need to add a line to make it clear that between the two examples, the unstable versions were stabilised.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

added some context

"org.matrix.msc3083": "unstable"
}
},
"m.change_password": {...}
}
}
````
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

should be ```.

likewise below.


Proposed modification.
In the following hypothetical sample, 3 new versions has been introduced (7, 8 and 9) but 6 is still the default.

````
{
"capabilities": {
"m.room_versions": {
"default": "6",
"available": {
"1": "stable",
"...,
"6": "stable",
"7": "stable",
"8": "stable",
"9": "stable",
"org.matrix.msc6789": "unstable",
},
"room_capabilities": {
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

s/room_capabilities/capabilities/ ?

"knock" : {
"preferred": "7",
"support" : ["7"]
},
"restricted" : {
"preferred": "9",
"support" : ["8", "9"]
}
}
Comment on lines +67 to +76
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Did you consider doing this the other way round - ie, listing the capabilities provided by each room version?

      "room_capabilities": {
        "7": ["knock"],
        "8": ["restricted"],
        "9": ["restricted"]
      }

This feels more natural to me, though admittedly it still leaves the client with the problem of how to pick a room version from those that support a given feature.

}
}
}
````

A new object is added under `room_capabilities`, each key is the name of a capability.
This object provides the list of room versions supporting this capability as well as the preferred version to use.


As part of this MSC, two capabilities are defined:
- `knock` for knocking join rule support [MSC2403](https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-doc/pull/2403)
- `restricted` for restricted join rule support [MSC3083](https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-doc/pull/3083)
Copy link
Contributor

@MadLittleMods MadLittleMods Apr 21, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Are we allowing unstable capabilities to be added here? I've wanted to use this to advertise MSC2716 support, matrix-org/synapse#12516

It would be good to add a note that unstable capabilities are allowed with prefixes.


## Client recommendations:

__Notice__: In real world usage most of the time clients should not specify a room version when creating
a room, and should let the Home Server select the correct one (via their knowledgeable server admin).
This is an advanced mechanism to start using feature early.

When presenting room settings, clients should use capabilities in order to display the correct UI.

For example if the room support knocking, the client should add this option in the join rule chooser
(and if not only show `Invite Only` and `Public` for example).

When creating a room, the client could check if the needed feature is supported by the server before creating.

If the feature is not supported, the client could inform the user that this type of room can't be created
as well as an information message explaining how to contact the home server admin.

If the feature is supported by the default room version, then just continue as usual.

If the feature is supported but by a stable room version that is not the default one, the client should
then request to use the preferred version (`preferred`) that supports the feature, in the create room call:
Comment on lines +119 to +120
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This seems to imply that unstable room versions can be included in the response. This isn't 100% clear from the examples.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

IMO preferred should always be stable, support should include all known room versions, inc unstable, as that field is what drives the UI of whether to show a particular setting


````
POST /_matrix/client/r0/createRoom HTTP/1.1
Content-Type: application/json

{
"preset": "....",
"name": "....",
"topic": "....",
"creation_content": { ... }
"room_version": "8"
}
````

In the hypothetical scenario where multiple capabilities would be needed (e.g mscXX1 and mscXX2), and have different `preferred` versions, clients can then pick one of the stable version that appears in both `support` arrays.
Copy link
Member

@clokep clokep Jun 29, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is there a benefit to having preferred and support separate as opposed to just an ordered array for support?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We might want to be able to say "preferred": null whilst only unstable room versions support this, e.g right now for restricted, but still giving the clients the list of supporting room versions to know what UI to show for an experimental room version without needing to hardcode it.


Notice that, it is not recommended to use an unstable room version even if it's the only one supporting a given feature.
It should be reserved for development. This MSC is only about default version not about unstable.


## Unstable prefix

The following mapping will be used for identifiers in this MSC during development:


Proposed final identifier | Purpose | Development identifier
------------------------------- | ------- | ----
`room_capabilities` | event type | `org.matrix.msc3244.room_capabilities`
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

PoC implementations:

Uses "preferred": null for restricted to never have preferred be an unstable version