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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Configuration of E2E encryption in a room #1200

Closed
benparsons opened this issue May 10, 2018 · 8 comments
Closed

Configuration of E2E encryption in a room #1200

benparsons opened this issue May 10, 2018 · 8 comments
Labels
kind:core MSC which is critical to the protocol's success merged A proposal whose PR has merged into the spec! proposal A matrix spec change proposal

Comments

@benparsons
Copy link
Member

benparsons commented May 10, 2018 •
edited by uhoreg
Loading

Documentation: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SEPMhNh6ztcrrbkGRSayVQ23bd3cfMPkTgGL4kBS9Ps/edit#heading=h.e7hfigo2zcsj
Author: @richvdh
Date: 16/06/2016
PRs: #1284
@benparsons benparsons added the merged A proposal whose PR has merged into the spec! label May 10, 2018
@ara4n ara4n added the proposal A matrix spec change proposal label May 15, 2018
@richvdh
Copy link
Member

richvdh commented May 31, 2018

part of #501. I don't think it has been merged.

@richvdh richvdh added spec-pr-missing Proposal has been implemented and is being used in the wild but hasn't yet been added to the spec and removed merged A proposal whose PR has merged into the spec! labels May 31, 2018
@Zil0
Copy link
Contributor

Zil0 commented Jul 18, 2018

Isn't this a duplicate of #590?

@Zil0 Zil0 mentioned this issue Jul 18, 2018
Merged
@turt2live
Copy link
Member

This is the proposal that fixes #590

@Zil0
Copy link
Contributor

Zil0 commented Jul 18, 2018

@turt2live right, so shouldn't #590 be closed?

@turt2live
Copy link
Member

Once the spec PR for this proposal is merged, yes

@richvdh
Copy link
Member

richvdh commented Jul 18, 2018

@Zil0 the convention we've gone with is that each proposal doc gets its own issue, even if there is already a related issue open about it. It's leading to a bit of duplication but such is life.

As far as this particular pair of issues is concerned: I'm not actually sure that this proposal does fix all of #590. There's quite a shopping list of things over there, and I'm not sure that it's fair to say this is a duplicate.

@Zil0
Copy link
Contributor

Zil0 commented Jul 19, 2018

@richvdh I thought it was a duplicate because I didn't know about the convention, I get it now.

Looking closer at the shopping list, you're right that its scope seems larger than this proposal, but it feels very outdated overall, and it is not obvious what would be left to fix in order to close it.

@uhoreg uhoreg added spec-pr-in-review A proposal which has been PR'd against the spec and is in review and removed spec-pr-missing Proposal has been implemented and is being used in the wild but hasn't yet been added to the spec labels Aug 6, 2018
@uhoreg uhoreg added merged A proposal whose PR has merged into the spec! and removed spec-pr-in-review A proposal which has been PR'd against the spec and is in review labels Aug 24, 2018
@uhoreg
Copy link
Member

uhoreg commented Aug 24, 2018

Fixed by #1284

@uhoreg uhoreg closed this as completed Aug 24, 2018
@turt2live turt2live added the kind:core MSC which is critical to the protocol's success label Apr 21, 2020
RiotTranslateBot pushed a commit to RiotTranslateBot/matrix-doc that referenced this issue Aug 22, 2023
@turt2live
Use auth header instead of query param for hs->as comms (matrix-org#1200
6dc7b95 
)

* Use auth header instead of query param for hs->as comms

MSC: matrix-org#2832

* Fix for OpenAPI 2
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
kind:core MSC which is critical to the protocol's success merged A proposal whose PR has merged into the spec! proposal A matrix spec change proposal
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
6 participants
@uhoreg @turt2live @benparsons @ara4n @richvdh @Zil0