|
|
|
@ -64,6 +64,25 @@ old VB to the new one.
|
|
|
|
|
technical specification will follow once a consensus is formed on how to proceed or solve above
|
|
|
|
|
problems.*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# Enabled features
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Decentralized Bridging
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The first and primary usecase this proposal wishes to enable is, of course, the ability to "go
|
|
|
|
|
anywhere and bridge magically". That is to say; a user can join any room, and the VB will
|
|
|
|
|
automatically verify itself to the HB, enabling it to seamlessly double-puppet once/if the user
|
|
|
|
|
joins the other end of the bridge with its own user.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Appservice-less bridges
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
With this proposal, a usecase where bridges become based on the regular CS API (as opposed to the
|
|
|
|
|
appservice API) can become a possibility, as bridges today are expected to maintain everything about
|
|
|
|
|
the room they're bridging to, including ghost users.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thus, a user may only "have" a bridge to maintain a consistent identity across platforms. The
|
|
|
|
|
removal of the need for the AS API could move these bridges to remote spots, such as user-hosted
|
|
|
|
|
raspberry PIs, operating itself as a "normal" matrix user.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# Potential Issues
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Bridge Downtime
|
|
|
|
|