MSC3983: Sending One-Time Key (OTK) claims to appservices

.github/_typos.toml

@@ -1,2 +1,6 @@
 [default]
 check-filename = true
+
+[default.extend-identifiers]
+OTK = "OTK"
+OTKs = "OTKs"

proposals/3983-sending-otk-claims-to-appservices.md

@@ -0,0 +1,160 @@
+# MSC3983: Sending One-Time Key (OTK) claims to appservices
+
+Presently in Matrix, the public portion of OTKs are [uploaded](https://spec.matrix.org/v1.6/client-server-api/#uploading-keys)
+to the homeserver to ensure other devices can encrypt new messages without requiring the device to
+be online and responsive. This works for devices operating exclusively over the Client-Server API,
+however [appservices](https://spec.matrix.org/v1.6/application-service-api/) looking to support
+encryption (through [MSC3202](https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-spec-proposals/pull/3202) or
+similar) could have millions or billions of users on them, which can easily translate to quite a
+few public keys needing to be uploaded to the homeserver.
+
+Given appservices *generally* have an uptime which is equivalent to the homeserver itself, and will
+have already stored the public portion of its OTKs somewhere, we can save a bit of duplication by
+having the homeserver delegate [`/keys/claim`](https://spec.matrix.org/v1.6/client-server-api/#post_matrixclientv3keysclaim)
+requests to the appservice.
+
+In numbers, a conservative estimate for an interoperable messaging bridge (appservice) would be
+500 million users. Each user generates between 50 and 100 OTKs, so we'll pick the low end at 50.
+That's 25 **billion** public keys. Currently in Matrix, that means the appservice stores 25 billion
+keys and the homeserver stores a copy of those 25 billion keys.
+
+This proposal introduces a mechanism for saving the homeserver from duplicating 25 billion keys.
+
+## Background
+
+Appservices can register a [namespace](https://spec.matrix.org/v1.6/application-service-api/#registration)
+of users either exclusively (no one else can register users matching the regex) or implicitly (the
+appservice receives events about those users, but can't prevent registration). Implicit namespaces
+can be shared across multiple appservices.
+
+## Proposal
+
+For users under an appservice's explicit namespace, if that user has no unused OTKs (excluding fallback
+keys) on the homeserver, the homeserver proxies the following APIs to the appservice using the new
+API described below:
+* [`/_matrix/client/v3/keys/claim`](https://spec.matrix.org/v1.6/client-server-api/#post_matrixclientv3keysclaim)
+* [`/_matrix/federation/v1/user/keys/claim`](https://spec.matrix.org/v1.6/server-server-api/#post_matrixfederationv1userkeysclaim)
+
+**`POST /_matrix/app/v1/keys/claim`**
+```jsonc
+// Request
+{
+  "@alice:example.org": {
+    "DEVICEID": ["signed_curve25519", "signed_curve25519"] // device ID to algorithm names
+  },
+  // ...
+}
+```
+```jsonc
+// Response
+{
+  "@alice:example.org": {
+    "DEVICEID": {
+      "signed_curve25519:AAAAHg": {
+        "key": "...",
+        "signatures": {
+          "@alice:example.org": {
+            "ed25519:DEVICEID": "..."
+          }
+        }
+      },
+      "signed_curve25519:BBBBHg": {
+        "key": "...",
+        "signatures": {
+          "@alice:example.org": {
+            "ed25519:DEVICEID": "..."
+          }
+        }
+      }
+    }
+  },
+  // ...
+}
+```
+
+*Note*: Like other appservice endpoints, this endpoint should *not* be ratelimited and *does* require
+normal [authentication](https://spec.matrix.org/v1.6/application-service-api/#authorization).
+
+Multiple users, devices, and keys for those devices can be claimed in a single request. This is to
+allow homeservers to batch multiple client/federation requests into a single request on the appservice,
+if desirable. This is an optional optimization for homeserver implementations. In the example above, 2
+keys are claimed for one device.
+
+If the appservice responds with an error of any kind (including timeout), the homeserver uses the
+fallback key, if known. The homeserver additionally uses the fallback key (if known) to fill in
+missing keys from the appservice. For example, if the homeserver requested 2 keys for Alice but
+the appservice only provided 1, the homeserver would use the fallback key to fulfill the second.
+
+In this case, the appservice is responsible for ensuring it doesn't use a key twice. The
+`device_one_time_keys_count` field for the appservice (over MSC3202, for example) would be zero. In
+many implementations, when this field falls below a threshold it is common for upload requests to
+happen: appservices intending on using the new API should not perform those uploads as it means,
+quite simply, not using the new API.
+
+Normally the homeserver would be [ensuring](https://spec.matrix.org/v1.6/client-server-api/#one-time-and-fallback-keys)
+OTKs are only used once, however with the appservice serving the endpoint it becomes the responsibility
+of the appservice to perform this check.
+
+If the homeserver uses the fallback key, that will be communicated in the traditional ways to the
+appservice (namely through `device_unused_fallback_key_types` in the case of MSC3202).
+
+We don't apply this API to implicit (non-exclusive) users as it's possible for multiple appservices
+to have a namespace covering the user: instead of guessing or going around to each, we require the
+user to be in an exclusive namespace. This guarantees that there's only one appservice responsible
+for the user.
+
+## Potential issues
+
+As described, the appservice could be offline or in fact experience a worse uptime than the homeserver.
+This new API is optional for appservices: if they don't want to use it (because they know their uptime
+will be bad), they can simply upload keys in advance, just like before this proposal. Similarly, if
+the appservice is trying to use the API but is offline, they *should* have a fallback key to continue
+using as, well, a fallback.
+
+For appservices which never intend to upload keys there is a bit of a wasted lookup to see if there are
+any keys for the user(s). This could be mitigated with an implementation-specific flag to skip the lookup
+and just do proxying, though for the general case in this MSC the fallback key consideration is kept for
+reliability concerns.
+
+Similarly, if an appservice doesn't intend on uploading keys (because it doesn't support encryption) and
+indicates the route is [unknown](https://spec.matrix.org/v1.6/application-service-api/#unknown-routes),
+the homeserver could avoid calling appservice with a backoff to prevent excessive calls.
+
+## Alternatives
+
+Many encryption-capable bridges today can avoid uploading OTKs (and sometimes even device keys) because
+they have a bot user in the room. The bot user uploads its keys, but the remaining bridge users do not.
+This works if the bridge users don't need to be involved in rooms without the bot user present, though
+being able to (securely) DM bridge users is a valuable consideration for this MSC. In future, scalable
+encryption for appservices might take the shape of an appservice-wide device of some sort.
+
+It could be argued that supporting a fallback key for appservices is too much considering their uptime,
+however in practice appservices are not quite able to achieve 100% uptime. This proposal doesn't propose
+proxying device/signing key queries to the appservice for the same reliability concerns, though appservices
+which wish to opt to do so anyways could use [MSC3984](https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-spec-proposals/pull/3984).
+
+## Additional uses
+
+An appservice aiming to bridge two different encryption systems might use this endpoint to save on data,
+though currently the encryption used on both sides of the bridge would need to be compatible (ie: signatures
+from device IDs and user IDs need to exist). In future, other MSCs might make encryption bridges easier to
+build.
+
+## Security considerations
+
+No major considerations.
+
+## Unstable prefix
+
+While this MSC is not considered stable, implementations should use
+`/_matrix/app/unstable/org.matrix.msc3983/keys/claim` as the endpoint instead. There is no version
+compatibility check: homeservers implementing this functionality would receive an error from appservices
+which don't support the endpoint and thus engage in the behaviour described by the MSC.
+
+## Dependencies
+
+This MSC has no direct dependencies, however is of little use without being partnered with something
+like [MSC3202](https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-spec-proposals/pull/3202).
+
+This MSC is additionally useful when paired with [MSC3984](https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-spec-proposals/pull/3984),
+though has no direct dependency.