MSC4311: Ensuring the create event is available on invites (#4311)

* MSC: Ensuring the create event is available on invites and knocks

* Clarify that we're not replacing auth checks on create events

* Acknowledge disparity in unaffected room formats

* This isn't a word despite what spellcheck thinks

* add migration steps

* Just use the normal stripped_state format

* Rewrite problem statement and solution components to match new scope

* review: improve intro

* review: clarify format

* review: fix knocks

* review: fix room_id calculation

* review: rework migration wording

* Fully format all events in stripped state

* Spelling

* Make migration normative

* Apply suggestions from code review

Co-authored-by: Richard van der Hoff <1389908+richvdh@users.noreply.github.com>

* Adjust requirements on servers

---------

Co-authored-by: Richard van der Hoff <1389908+richvdh@users.noreply.github.com>

proposals/4311-stripped-state-create-event.md

@@ -0,0 +1,108 @@
+# MSC4311: Ensuring the create event is available on invites
+
+Historically, when processing an incoming invite or outgoing knock, safety tooling would parse the room ID despite
+[being opaque](https://spec.matrix.org/v1.15/appendices/#room-ids), to determine the server which
+originally created the room. If that server was considered abusive, the invite or
+knock may be rejected or blocked early by the tooling. Note that checking the domain of the
+sender of an invite is inadequate, because the sender may not be on the same server as the
+user who created the room.
+
+With [MSC4291](https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-spec-proposals/pull/4291), room IDs lose their
+domain component. This, combined with [Stripped State](https://spec.matrix.org/v1.15/client-server-api/#stripped-state)
+recommending rather than requiring the `m.room.create` event, makes the above check harder if not
+impossible when the create event is missing or incomplete, as the room ID cannot be confirmed in
+MSC4291+ room versions.
+
+To mitigate the problem in the case of invites,
+this MSC shifts the `m.room.create` event to a *required* stripped state event, and imposes validation
+to ensure the event matches the room. To support the new validation, the `m.room.create` event must
+be formatted as a full PDU in the stripped state of [invites](https://spec.matrix.org/v1.15/server-server-api/#put_matrixfederationv1inviteroomideventid)
+over federation. Similar treatment is applied to other stripped state events for uniformity.
+
+[Knocks](https://spec.matrix.org/v1.15/server-server-api/#put_matrixfederationv1send_knockroomideventid)
+additionally include the full PDU format, though only to ensure symmetry between the two instances of
+stripped state. It's not possible to prevent a knock based on stripped state because the server will
+have already sent the knock before stripped state is received.
+
+
+## Proposal
+
+On the Client-Server API, `m.room.create` MUST be provided in [Stripped State](https://spec.matrix.org/v1.15/client-server-api/#stripped-state),
+where available. No other changes are proposed to the Client-Server API. For clarity, this means clients
+continue to receive events which only have `content`, `sender`, `state_key` (optional), and `type` in
+the `invite_room_state`, `knock_room_state`, and wherever else stripped state is used.
+
+Over federation, servers MUST include the `m.room.create` event in the [`invite_room_state`](https://spec.matrix.org/v1.15/server-server-api/#put_matrixfederationv1inviteroomideventid)
+and [`knock_room_state`](https://spec.matrix.org/v1.15/server-server-api/#put_matrixfederationv1send_knockroomideventid).
+Servers MUST additionally format events in `invite_room_state` and `knock_room_state` as PDUs according
+to that room version's event format specification. Together, these changes allow servers to validate
+the room ID matches the invite (or knock, though it's already sent by the time validation would happen).
+
+Specifically, including the `m.room.create` event as a full PDU allows servers to calculate the room
+ID by hashing the event in MSC4291+ room versions. For other room versions (1 through 11), the server
+can at most compare the `room_id` field of the create event with the invite/knock membership event.
+
+If any of the events are not a PDU, not for the room ID specified, or fail [signature checks](https://spec.matrix.org/v1.15/server-server-api/#validating-hashes-and-signatures-on-received-events),
+or the `m.room.create` event is missing, the receiving server MAY respond to invites with a `400 M_MISSING_PARAM`
+standard Matrix error (new to the endpoint). For invites to room version 12+ rooms, servers SHOULD
+rather than MAY respond to such requests with `400 M_MISSING_PARAM`. For knocks, the server SHOULD remove any events from
+`knock_room_state` which fail the same validation check before passing the details along to clients.
+Ideally, the server would be able to prevent the knock from happening, though by the time the server
+can see the `knock_room_state`, the knock has already happened.
+
+**Note**: Servers SHOULD consider their local ecosystems before imposing this validation completely,
+per the "Migration" section later in this document.
+
+The `400 M_MISSING_PARAM` error SHOULD be translated to a 5xx error by the sending server over the
+Client-Server API. This is done because there's nothing the client can materially do differently to
+make the request succeed.
+
+When comparing the room IDs, servers will need to calculate the room ID from the `m.room.create` event
+as described by MSC4291 (take the reference hash of the event for an event ID, swap the sigil).
+
+
+## Potential issues
+
+* Some server implementations allow safety tooling and other applications to hook into them between
+  the Federation API and Client-Server API. Such implementations are encouraged to make the create
+  event reasonably available in its full form to those applications. Typically, this will be an internal
+  representation of the event which still has the capability to serialize down to a PDU.
+
+* Implementations should take care to not unintentionally trust the events contained in `invite_room_state`
+  and `knock_room_state`, despite appearing as complete events. This is due to the lack of each event's
+  auth chain being included, and reassurance that the events are the current events.
+
+## Alternatives
+
+This proposal fills a potential gap in information created by MSC4291, making the alternatives roughly
+equivalent to "don't do this". A possible alternative is in the shape of [MSC4329](https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-spec-proposals/pull/4329)
+where the `/invite` endpoint changes, however the changes are roughly the same as this proposal's.
+
+
+## Security considerations
+
+Security considerations are made throughout, especially around validating the events included.
+
+
+## Unstable prefix
+
+This proposal does not require an unstable prefix as the behaviour can be accomplished without overly
+affecting client or server implementations.
+
+
+## Migration
+
+Mentioned above, existing server implementations SHOULD warn rather than fail on invites which don't
+have complete PDUs inside `invite_room_state` until their local ecosystem adoption allows for the
+full set of validation to be applied. If PDUs are complete, but for a different room, the invite SHOULD
+still fail in v12 rooms per the validation above.
+
+This proposal suggests that servers wait no longer than 3 months (or about 1 full spec release cycle)
+after this proposal is released to enforce the full validation, though servers may extend this as
+needed for their ecosystems to gain support.
+
+
+## Dependencies
+
+This proposal requires [MSC4291](https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-spec-proposals/pull/4291) in
+order to make any amount of sense.