-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 379
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
MSC1717: common definitions for key verification methods #1717
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It'd be nice if this proposal also covered an example key verification method itself, or at least linked to a proposal that does so.
@mscbot fcp merge |
Team member @uhoreg has proposed to merge this. The next step is review by the rest of the tagged people: No concerns currently listed. Once a majority of reviewers approve (and none object), this will enter its final comment period. If you spot a major issue that hasn't been raised at any point in this process, please speak up! See this document for info about what commands tagged team members can give me. |
|
||
Properties: | ||
|
||
- `from_device` (string): Required. The device ID of the device requesting |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
tbh I wonder if we should bake this into the spec as a requirement for the sending server to stamp it, similar to the sender
already stamped on it. Probably something for a different proposal though.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes, I've been frustrated by the fact that you don't automatically get the sending device. But, as you say, something for a different proposal.
Some of this is duplicated from 1267 (eg. the human readable reason string stuff which I commented on over on 1267). Seems like it really belongs in here and we should take some of that stuff out of 1267 and have it refer to here instead? |
🔔 This is now entering its final comment period, as per the review above. 🔔 |
The final comment period, with a disposition to merge, as per the review above, is now complete. |
Reference implementations: * https://gitlab.matrix.org/matrix-org/olm/commit/94f664e7256215f33639dbbad6aaf87ada082a9f * matrix-org/matrix-react-sdk#2461 * matrix-org/matrix-js-sdk#818 * matrix-org/matrix-react-sdk#2596 * matrix-org/matrix-js-sdk#837 Proposals: * [MSC1717](#1717) * [MSC1267](#1267) No alterations to either proposal have been made intentionally here.
Spec PR: #2072 |
merged 🎉 |
Rendered