Initial MSC draft for jump to date

proposals/000-get-messages-at-timestamp.md

@@ -0,0 +1,73 @@
+# MSC0000: Jump to date API endpoint
+
+Add an API that makes it easy to find the closest messages for a given timestamp.
+
+The goal of this change is to have clients be able to implement a jump to date feature in order to see messages back at a given point in time. Pick a date from a calender, heatmap, or paginate next/previous between days and view all of the messages that were sent on that date
+
+For our [roadmap of feature parity with Gitter](https://github.com/vector-im/roadmap/issues/26), we're also interested in using this for a new better static Matrix archive. Our idea is to server-side render [Hydrogen](https://github.com/vector-im/hydrogen-web) and this new endpoint would allow us to jump back on the fly without having to paginate and keep track of everything in order to display the selected date.
+
+Also useful for archiving and backup use cases. This new endpoint can be used to slice the messages by day and persist to file.
+
+Related issue: [*URL for an arbitrary day of history and navigation for next and previous days* (vector-im/element-web#7677)](https://github.com/vector-im/element-web/issues/7677)
+
+
+## Problem
+
+These types of use cases are not supported by the current Matrix API because it has no way to fetch or filter older messages besides a manual brute force pagination from the latest. Paginating is time-consuming and expensive to process every event as you go (not practical for clients). Imagine wanting to get a message from 3 years ago 😫
+
+
+## Proposal
+
+Add the `?around=<timestamp>` query parameter to the `GET /_matrix/client/r0/rooms/{roomId}/messages` endpoint. This will start the response at the message with `origin_server_ts` closest to the provided `around` timestamp. The direction is determined by the existing `?dir` query parameter.
+
+Use topoligical ordering, just as Element would use if you follow a permalink.
+
+
+## Potential issues
+
+If you ask for “the message with `origin_server_ts` closest to Jan 1st 2018” you might actually get a rogue random delayed one that was backfilled from a federated server, but the human can figure that out by trying again with a slight variation on the date or something.
+
+
+## Alternatives
+
+### Filter by date in `RoomEventFilter`
+
+Extend `RoomEventFilter` to be able to specify a timestamp or a date range. The `RoomEventFilter` can be passed via the `?filter` query param on the `/messages` endpoint.
+
+
+### New `destination_server_ts` field
+
+Add a new field and index on messages called `destination_server_ts` which indicates when the message was received from federation. This gives a more "real" time for how someone would actually consume those messages.
+
+The contract of the API is "show me messages my server received at time T" rather than the messy confusion of showing a delayed message which happened to originally be sent at time T.
+
+We've decided against this approach because the backfill from federated servers could be horribly late.
+
+---
+
+Related issue around `/sync` vs `/messages`, https://github.com/matrix-org/synapse/issues/7164
+
+> Sync returns things in the order they arrive at the server; backfill returns them in the order determined by the event graph.
+>
+> *-- @richvdh, https://github.com/matrix-org/synapse/issues/7164#issuecomment-605877176*
+
+> The general idea is that, if you're following a room in real-time (ie, `/sync`), you probably want to see the messages as they arrive at your server, rather than skipping any that arrived late; whereas if you're looking at a historical section of timeline (ie, `/messages`), you want to see the best representation of the state of the room as others were seeing it at the time.
+>
+> *-- @richvdh , https://github.com/matrix-org/synapse/issues/7164#issuecomment-605953296*
+
+
+## Security considerations
+
+We're only going to expose messages according to the existing message history setting in the room (`m.room.history_visibility`). No extra data is exposed, just a new way to sort through it all.
+
+
+
+## Unstable prefix
+
+*If a proposal is implemented before it is included in the spec, then implementers must ensure that the
+implementation is compatible with the final version that lands in the spec. This generally means that
+experimental implementations should use `/unstable` endpoints, and use vendor prefixes where necessary.
+For more information, see [MSC2324](https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-doc/pull/2324). This section
+should be used to document things such as what endpoints and names are being used while the feature is
+in development, the name of the unstable feature flag to use to detect support for the feature, or what
+migration steps are needed to switch to newer versions of the proposal.*