MSC2061: make the trailing slash on GET /_matrix/key/v2/server/ optional

[richvdh]

I think there's a strong argument that this could be called a spec clarification, but let's have an MSC for it to be on the safe side.

Rendered: https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-doc/blob/rav/proposal/no_trailing_slash_on_key_request/proposals/2061-drop-trailing-slash-from-key-request.md

[richvdh]

Oh, this needs extending to cover https://matrix.org/docs/spec/server_server/r0.1.1.html#get-matrix-key-v2-query-servername-keyid, following the same logic.

[richvdh]

This gets more complicated:

• The specced behaviour for GET /_matrix/key/v2/query/{serverName}/{keyId} (ignore the keyId) is different from that for the POST equivalent.

• It's worth noting that synapse does (attempt to) filter the results for both /query endpoints by the given keyId(s) (modulo sometimes the key notary endpoint doesn't give back the keys you asked for synapse#5305), unlike the /server version.

• For the /query endpoint, the use of keyId is quite important, since it is the only clue to the notary server that its list of keys for a given server may be incomplete.

I therefore think that the deprecation of the keyId param for GET /_matrix/key/v2/query/{serverName}/{keyId} and the suggestion that the server ignore it was misguided.

However, in many ways, those concerns are orthogonal to the proposal here: I remain of the opinion that, as long as the keyId param is optional, so should the trailing slash be.

[turt2live]

I honestly don't think this needs to be a MSC: we already don't specify what trailing slashes are required (outside of push rules), so the whole spec could do with a clarification.

[richvdh]

I honestly don't think this needs to be a MSC: we already don't specify what trailing slashes are required (outside of push rules), so the whole spec could do with a clarification.

I'm very happy with that, especially if you'd like to take the lead on adding that clarification...

[turt2live]

Will do. I'll leave this open as a reminder, but I think the best status for it is.. uhh... taking the proposal label off of it?

[turt2live]

closing in favour of #2097