Merge 8867b6cd69 into ecf996389f

proposals/2213-rejoin-private-rooms.md

@@ -0,0 +1,90 @@
+# Rejoinability of private rooms
+
+Similar to a house, users in a private room should have the option of joining and
+leaving a room provided they have a key to get in. This process shouldn't involve
+another user to send an invite once the user has joined at least once. This proposal
+has little meaning in a public room as users are welcome to come and go as they
+please already.
+
+An example use case for this would be a direct chat where for de-cluttering one
+of the users leaves all direct chats after they become irrelevant. This does
+already happen in practice, and often results in the user who left creating multiple
+DMs with the other user. [MSC2199](https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-doc/pull/2199)
+covers new DM semantics which benefit from this proposal where users can re-use
+DMs even after they've left.
+
+Another use case, not solved by this proposal, would be to support a group-wide
+join rule where members of a given group are able to join the room. This use case
+is better solved by [MSC2214](https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-doc/pull/2214)
+however.
+
+## Proposal
+
+In a future room version...
+
+`m.room.join_rules` is expanded to have a new `rejoin_rule` field under `content`,
+preserved by the redaction algorithm. The `rejoin_rule` must be one of:
+
+* `invite`: Members which were previously invited or joined to the room can rejoin,
+  provided they are now not banned.
+
+* `join`: Members which were previously joined to the room can rejoin, provided they
+  are now not banned.
+
+* `forbidden`: This event cannot be used to authorize a rejoin (members must be
+  explicitly invited back into the room). This is the default.
+
+The `rejoin_rule` only takes effect if the `join_rule` for the room is `invite`,
+given users can already rejoin the room if the room is public. When the `join_rule`
+is any other value, the `rejoin_rule` does not affect the auth for an event.
+
+When a join or invite is being processed, the server must first determine if that
+user has a prior membership event. If the user does not have a prior membership event,
+the `rejoin_rule` does not apply. If the user does have a prior membership event,
+the following conditions do apply:
+
+1. If the previous membership is not explicitly `leave`, `rejoin_rule` does not apply.
+   For example, bans still ban, invites still invite, and never having been in the room
+   does not let you use `rejoin_rule` to get in.
+2. If the `rejoin_rule` is `forbidden`, or implied to be `forbidden`, reject.
+3. If the previous membership is explicitly `leave`, the server must look at the membership
+   previous to that membership to make a decision:
+   1. If the `rejoin_rule` is `join` and the membership previous to `leave` is not `join`
+      then reject. Else accept.
+   2. If the `rejoin_rule` is `invite` and the membership previous to `leave` is not
+      `join` or `invite`, reject. Else accept.
+
+In short: the member must `leave` before they can have a `rejoin_rule` allow them in
+again.
+
+**Known limitation**: If the user were to be kicked twice they would not be allowed
+back into the room despite a reasonable `rejoin_rule`. This is an intentional limitation
+of the proposal to prevent servers from having to traverse the entire room state history
+to find a previous membership event. For example, if a server had to traverse the state
+history for Matrix HQ (if it were private) every time someone wanted to join the server
+could end up exhausting resources. For simplicity, the server is only expected to look
+at the most recent 2 memberships maximum, as per above. This limitation can be resolved
+with a regular invite.
+
+
+## Security considerations
+
+Room operators are expected to be aware of the room access controls available to them,
+much like they are expected to understand the ones currently available. This join rule
+alteration may not be applicable to their room, or could open them up to an attack they
+are not comfortable with. For this reason, the default behaviour of the proposal is to
+maintain existing expectations for join rules.
+
+
+## Alternative solutions
+
+Instead of re-using the join rules event we could introduce a new state event. Although
+possible, and would likely have the same semantics, it is not immediately obvious what
+the benefit of more state events would bring to Matrix. It is often preferred to reuse
+existing constructs where possible, such as the aptly named "join rules" event.
+
+Further, this proposal could be done in the form of introducing new `join_rule`s instead
+of a new field. Given the `rejoin_rule` only takes effect when `join_rule == "invite"`,
+we could redefine the `join_rule` to be `[public, invite, rejoin_invite, rejoin_join]`
+or similar. This would simplify the definition, however it does conflate two concerns
+and behaviours.