|
|
|
@ -116,9 +116,21 @@ Implementing encrypted avatars could cause difficulty for clients that assume
|
|
|
|
|
that avatars are always unencrypted mxc URIs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Alternatives
|
|
|
|
|
### New state events
|
|
|
|
|
Per-message profiles could be transmitted more compactly by defining the profile
|
|
|
|
|
in a new state event and only referencing the state key in the message event.
|
|
|
|
|
However, that approach wouldn't enable encrypting per-message profiles.
|
|
|
|
|
However, that approach wouldn't enable encrypting per-message profiles without
|
|
|
|
|
inventing encrypted state events. Additionally, even with encrypted state
|
|
|
|
|
events, some kind of sender identifiers would be leaked via state keys.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Appservices
|
|
|
|
|
Appservices work perfectly fine for bridging already now, but they require
|
|
|
|
|
admin access to a server, which is not available for everyone. Additionally,
|
|
|
|
|
they have similar metadata issues as the "New state events" alternative above.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For use cases involving a single human user, having multiple mxids (regardless
|
|
|
|
|
of whether they're registered manually or via an appservice) complicates things
|
|
|
|
|
unnecessarily.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Security considerations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|