|
|
|
.. Copyright 2016 OpenMarket Ltd
|
|
|
|
.. Copyright 2017 Kamax.io
|
|
|
|
.. Copyright 2017 New Vector Ltd
|
|
|
|
.. Copyright 2018 New Vector Ltd
|
|
|
|
..
|
|
|
|
.. Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License");
|
|
|
|
.. you may not use this file except in compliance with the License.
|
|
|
|
.. You may obtain a copy of the License at
|
|
|
|
..
|
|
|
|
.. http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
|
|
|
|
..
|
|
|
|
.. Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
|
|
|
|
.. distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
|
|
|
|
.. WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied.
|
|
|
|
.. See the License for the specific language governing permissions and
|
|
|
|
.. limitations under the License.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Identity Service API
|
|
|
|
====================
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{unstable_warning_block_IDENTITY_RELEASE_LABEL}}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Matrix client-server and server-server APIs are largely expressed in Matrix
|
|
|
|
user identifiers. From time to time, it is useful to refer to users by other
|
|
|
|
("third-party") identifiers, or "3PID"s, e.g. their email address or phone
|
|
|
|
number. This Identity Service Specification describes how mappings between
|
|
|
|
third-party identifiers and Matrix user identifiers can be established,
|
|
|
|
validated, and used. This description technically may apply to any 3PID, but in
|
|
|
|
practice has only been applied specifically to email addresses and phone numbers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. contents:: Table of Contents
|
|
|
|
.. sectnum::
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Changelog
|
|
|
|
---------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. topic:: Version: %IDENTITY_RELEASE_LABEL%
|
|
|
|
{{identity_service_changelog}}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This version of the specification is generated from
|
|
|
|
`matrix-doc <https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-doc>`_ as of Git commit
|
|
|
|
`{{git_version}} <https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-doc/tree/{{git_rev}}>`_.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the full historical changelog, see
|
|
|
|
https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-doc/blob/master/changelogs/identity_service.rst
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other versions of this specification
|
|
|
|
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The following other versions are also available, in reverse chronological order:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- `HEAD <https://matrix.org/docs/spec/identity_service/unstable.html>`_: Includes all changes since the latest versioned release.
|
|
|
|
- `r0.3.0 <https://matrix.org/docs/spec/identity_service/r0.3.0.html>`_
|
|
|
|
- `r0.2.1 <https://matrix.org/docs/spec/identity_service/r0.2.1.html>`_
|
|
|
|
- `r0.2.0 <https://matrix.org/docs/spec/identity_service/r0.2.0.html>`_
|
|
|
|
- `r0.1.0 <https://matrix.org/docs/spec/identity_service/r0.1.0.html>`_
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
General principles
|
|
|
|
------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The purpose of an identity server is to validate, store, and answer questions
|
|
|
|
about the identities of users. In particular, it stores associations of the form
|
|
|
|
"identifier X represents the same user as identifier Y", where identities may
|
|
|
|
exist on different systems (such as email addresses, phone numbers,
|
|
|
|
Matrix user IDs, etc).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The identity server has some private-public keypairs. When asked about an
|
|
|
|
association, it will sign details of the association with its private key.
|
|
|
|
Clients may validate the assertions about associations by verifying the signature
|
|
|
|
with the public key of the identity server.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In general, identity servers are treated as reliable oracles. They do not
|
|
|
|
necessarily provide evidence that they have validated associations, but claim to
|
|
|
|
have done so. Establishing the trustworthiness of an individual identity server
|
|
|
|
is left as an exercise for the client.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3PID types are described in `3PID Types`_ Appendix.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
API standards
|
|
|
|
-------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The mandatory baseline for identity server communication in Matrix is exchanging
|
|
|
|
JSON objects over HTTP APIs. HTTPS is required for communication, and all API calls
|
|
|
|
use a Content-Type of ``application/json``. In addition, strings MUST be encoded as
|
|
|
|
UTF-8.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Any errors which occur at the Matrix API level MUST return a "standard error response".
|
|
|
|
This is a JSON object which looks like:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. code:: json
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
"errcode": "<error code>",
|
|
|
|
"error": "<error message>"
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The ``error`` string will be a human-readable error message, usually a sentence
|
|
|
|
explaining what went wrong. The ``errcode`` string will be a unique string
|
|
|
|
which can be used to handle an error message e.g. ``M_FORBIDDEN``. There may be
|
|
|
|
additional keys depending on the error, but the keys ``error`` and ``errcode``
|
|
|
|
MUST always be present.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Some standard error codes are below:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:``M_NOT_FOUND``:
|
|
|
|
The resource requested could not be located.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:``M_MISSING_PARAMS``:
|
|
|
|
The request was missing one or more parameters.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:``M_INVALID_PARAM``:
|
|
|
|
The request contained one or more invalid parameters.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:``M_SESSION_NOT_VALIDATED``:
|
|
|
|
The session has not been validated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:``M_NO_VALID_SESSION``:
|
|
|
|
A session could not be located for the given parameters.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:``M_SESSION_EXPIRED``:
|
|
|
|
The session has expired and must be renewed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:``M_INVALID_EMAIL``:
|
|
|
|
The email address provided was not valid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:``M_EMAIL_SEND_ERROR``:
|
|
|
|
There was an error sending an email. Typically seen when attempting to verify
|
|
|
|
ownership of a given email address.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:``M_INVALID_ADDRESS``:
|
|
|
|
The provided third party address was not valid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:``M_SEND_ERROR``:
|
|
|
|
There was an error sending a notification. Typically seen when attempting to
|
|
|
|
verify ownership of a given third party address.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:``M_UNRECOGNIZED``:
|
|
|
|
The request contained an unrecognised value, such as an unknown token or medium.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:``M_THREEPID_IN_USE``:
|
|
|
|
The third party identifier is already in use by another user. Typically this
|
|
|
|
error will have an additional ``mxid`` property to indicate who owns the
|
|
|
|
third party identifier.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:``M_UNKNOWN``:
|
|
|
|
An unknown error has occurred.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Privacy
|
|
|
|
-------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Identity is a privacy-sensitive issue. While the identity server exists to
|
|
|
|
provide identity information, access should be restricted to avoid leaking
|
|
|
|
potentially sensitive data. In particular, being able to construct large-scale
|
|
|
|
connections between identities should be avoided. To this end, in general APIs
|
|
|
|
should allow a 3PID to be mapped to a Matrix user identity, but not in the other
|
|
|
|
direction (i.e. one should not be able to get all 3PIDs associated with a Matrix
|
|
|
|
user ID, or get all 3PIDs associated with a 3PID).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Version 1 API deprecation
|
|
|
|
-------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. TODO: Remove this section when the v1 API is removed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As described on each of the version 1 endpoints, the v1 API is deprecated in
|
|
|
|
favour of the v2 API described here. The major difference, with the exception
|
|
|
|
of a few isolated cases, is that the v2 API requires authentication to ensure
|
|
|
|
the user has given permission for the identity server to operate on their data.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The v1 API is planned to be removed from the specification in a future version.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clients SHOULD attempt the v2 endpoints first, and if they receive a ``404``,
|
|
|
|
``400``, or similar error they should try the v1 endpoint or fail the operation.
|
|
|
|
Clients are strongly encouraged to warn the user of the risks in using the v1 API,
|
|
|
|
if they are planning on using it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Web browser clients
|
|
|
|
-------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is realistic to expect that some clients will be written to be run within a web
|
|
|
|
browser or similar environment. In these cases, the identity server should respond to
|
|
|
|
pre-flight requests and supply Cross-Origin Resource Sharing (CORS) headers on all
|
|
|
|
requests.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When a client approaches the server with a pre-flight (OPTIONS) request, the server
|
|
|
|
should respond with the CORS headers for that route. The recommended CORS headers
|
|
|
|
to be returned by servers on all requests are::
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Access-Control-Allow-Origin: *
|
|
|
|
Access-Control-Allow-Methods: GET, POST, PUT, DELETE, OPTIONS
|
|
|
|
Access-Control-Allow-Headers: Origin, X-Requested-With, Content-Type, Accept, Authorization
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Authentication
|
|
|
|
--------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Most ``v2`` endpoints in the Identity Service API require authentication in order
|
|
|
|
to ensure that the requesting user has accepted all relevant policies and is otherwise
|
|
|
|
permitted to make the request. The ``v1`` API (currently deprecated) does not require
|
|
|
|
this authentication, however using ``v1`` is strongly discouraged as it will be removed
|
|
|
|
in a future release.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Identity Servers use a scheme similar to the Client-Server API's concept of access
|
|
|
|
tokens to authenticate users. The access tokens provided by an Identity Server cannot
|
|
|
|
be used to authenticate Client-Server API requests.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
An access token is provided to an endpoint in one of two ways:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. Via a query string parameter, ``access_token=TheTokenHere``.
|
|
|
|
2. Via a request header, ``Authorization: Bearer TheTokenHere``.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clients are encouraged to the use the ``Authorization`` header where possible to prevent
|
|
|
|
the access token being leaked in access/HTTP logs. The query string should only be used
|
|
|
|
in cases where the ``Authorization`` header is inaccessible for the client.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When credentials are required but missing or invalid, the HTTP call will return with a
|
|
|
|
status of 401 and the error code ``M_UNAUTHORIZED``.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{v2_auth_is_http_api}}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. _`agree to more terms`:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Terms of service
|
|
|
|
----------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Identity Servers are encouraged to have terms of service (or similar policies) to
|
|
|
|
ensure that users have agreed to their data being processed by the server. To facilitate
|
|
|
|
this, an identity server can respond to almost any authenticated API endpoint with a
|
|
|
|
HTTP 403 and the error code ``M_TERMS_NOT_SIGNED``. The error code is used to indicate
|
|
|
|
that the user must accept new terms of service before being able to continue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All endpoints which support authentication can return the ``M_TERMS_NOT_SIGNED`` error.
|
|
|
|
When clients receive the error, they are expected to make a call to ``GET /terms`` to
|
|
|
|
find out what terms the server offers. The client compares this to the ``m.accepted_terms``
|
|
|
|
account data for the user (described later) and presents the user with option to accept
|
|
|
|
the still-missing terms of service. After the user has made their selection, if applicable,
|
|
|
|
the client sends a request to ``POST /terms`` to indicate the user's acceptance. The
|
|
|
|
server cannot expect that the client will send acceptance for all pending terms, and the
|
|
|
|
client should not expect that the server will not respond with another ``M_TERMS_NOT_SIGNED``
|
|
|
|
on their next request. The terms the user has just accepted are appended to ``m.accepted_terms``.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{m_accepted_terms_event}}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{v2_terms_is_http_api}}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Status check
|
|
|
|
------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{ping_is_http_api}}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{v2_ping_is_http_api}}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Key management
|
|
|
|
--------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
An identity server has some long-term public-private keypairs. These are named
|
|
|
|
in a scheme ``algorithm:identifier``, e.g. ``ed25519:0``. When signing an
|
|
|
|
association, the standard `Signing JSON`_ algorithm applies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. TODO: Actually allow identity servers to revoke all keys
|
|
|
|
See: https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-doc/issues/1633
|
|
|
|
.. In the event of key compromise, the identity server may revoke any of its keys.
|
|
|
|
An HTTP API is offered to get public keys, and check whether a particular key is
|
|
|
|
valid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The identity server may also keep track of some short-term public-private
|
|
|
|
keypairs, which may have different usage and lifetime characteristics than the
|
|
|
|
service's long-term keys.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{pubkey_is_http_api}}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{v2_pubkey_is_http_api}}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Association lookup
|
|
|
|
------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{lookup_is_http_api}}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{v2_lookup_is_http_api}}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Client behaviour
|
|
|
|
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. TODO: Remove this note when v1 is removed completely
|
|
|
|
.. Note::
|
|
|
|
This section only covers the v2 lookup endpoint. The v1 endpoint is described
|
|
|
|
in isolation above.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Prior to performing a lookup clients SHOULD make a request to the ``/hash_details``
|
|
|
|
endpoint to determine what algorithms the server supports (described in more detail
|
|
|
|
below). The client then uses this information to form a ``/lookup`` request and
|
|
|
|
receive known bindings from the server.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clients MUST support at least the ``sha256`` algorithm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Server behaviour
|
|
|
|
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. TODO: Remove this note when v1 is removed completely
|
|
|
|
.. Note::
|
|
|
|
This section only covers the v2 lookup endpoint. The v1 endpoint is described
|
|
|
|
in isolation above.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Servers, upon receipt of a ``/lookup`` request, will compare the query against
|
|
|
|
known bindings it has, hashing the identifiers it knows about as needed to
|
|
|
|
verify exact matches to the request.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Servers MUST support at least the ``sha256`` algorithm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Algorithms
|
|
|
|
~~~~~~~~~~
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Some algorithms are defined as part of the specification, however other formats
|
|
|
|
can be negotiated between the client and server using ``/hash_details``.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
``sha256``
|
|
|
|
++++++++++
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This algorithm MUST be supported by clients and servers at a minimum. It is
|
|
|
|
additionally the preferred algorithm for lookups.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When using this algorithm, the client converts the query first into strings
|
|
|
|
separated by spaces in the format ``<address> <medium> <pepper>``. The ``<pepper>``
|
|
|
|
is retrieved from ``/hash_details``, the ``<medium>`` is typically ``email`` or
|
|
|
|
``msisdn`` (both lowercase), and the ``<address>`` is the 3PID to search for.
|
|
|
|
For example, if the client wanted to know about ``alice@example.org``'s bindings,
|
|
|
|
it would first format the query as ``alice@example.org email ThePepperGoesHere``.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. admonition:: Rationale
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mediums and peppers are appended to the address to prevent a common prefix
|
|
|
|
for each 3PID, helping prevent attackers from pre-computing the internal state
|
|
|
|
of the hash function.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
After formatting each query, the string is run through SHA-256 as defined by
|
|
|
|
`RFC 4634 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4634>`_. The resulting bytes are then
|
|
|
|
encoded using URL-Safe `Unpadded Base64`_ (similar to `room version 4's
|
|
|
|
event ID format <../rooms/v4.html#event-ids>`_).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
An example set of queries when using the pepper ``matrixrocks`` would be::
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"alice@example.com email matrixrocks" -> "4kenr7N9drpCJ4AfalmlGQVsOn3o2RHjkADUpXJWZUc"
|
|
|
|
"bob@example.com email matrixrocks" -> "LJwSazmv46n0hlMlsb_iYxI0_HXEqy_yj6Jm636cdT8"
|
|
|
|
"18005552067 msisdn matrixrocks" -> "nlo35_T5fzSGZzJApqu8lgIudJvmOQtDaHtr-I4rU7I"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The set of hashes is then given as the ``addresses`` array in ``/lookup``. Note
|
|
|
|
that the pepper used MUST be supplied as ``pepper`` in the ``/lookup`` request.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
``none``
|
|
|
|
++++++++
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This algorithm performs plaintext lookups on the identity server. Typically this
|
|
|
|
algorithm should not be used due to the security concerns of unhashed identifiers,
|
|
|
|
however some scenarios (such as LDAP-backed identity servers) prevent the use of
|
|
|
|
hashed identifiers. Identity servers (and optionally clients) can use this algorithm
|
|
|
|
to perform those kinds of lookups.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Similar to the ``sha256`` algorithm, the client converts the queries into strings
|
|
|
|
separated by spaces in the format ``<address> <medium>`` - note the lack of ``<pepper>``.
|
|
|
|
For example, if the client wanted to know about ``alice@example.org``'s bindings,
|
|
|
|
it would format the query as ``alice@example.org email``.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The formatted strings are then given as the ``addresses`` in ``/lookup``. Note that
|
|
|
|
the ``pepper`` is still required, and must be provided to ensure the client has made
|
|
|
|
an appropriate request to ``/hash_details`` first.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Security considerations
|
|
|
|
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. Note::
|
|
|
|
`MSC2134 <https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-doc/pull/2134>`_ has much more
|
|
|
|
information about the security considerations made for this section of the
|
|
|
|
specification. This section covers the high-level details for why the specification
|
|
|
|
is the way it is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Typically the lookup endpoint is used when a client has an unknown 3PID it wants to
|
|
|
|
find a Matrix User ID for. Clients normally do this kind of lookup when inviting new
|
|
|
|
users to a room or searching a user's address book to find any Matrix users they may
|
|
|
|
not have discovered yet. Rogue or malicious identity servers could harvest this
|
|
|
|
unknown information and do nefarious things with it if it were sent in plain text.
|
|
|
|
In order to protect the privacy of users who might not have a Matrix identifier bound
|
|
|
|
to their 3PID addresses, the specification attempts to make it difficult to harvest
|
|
|
|
3PIDs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. admonition:: Rationale
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hashing identifiers, while not perfect, helps make the effort required to harvest
|
|
|
|
identifiers significantly higher. Phone numbers in particular are still difficult
|
|
|
|
to protect with hashing, however hashing is objectively better than not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
An alternative to hashing would be using bcrypt or similar with many rounds, however
|
|
|
|
by nature of needing to serve mobile clients and clients on limited hardware the
|
|
|
|
solution needs be kept relatively lightweight.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clients should be cautious of servers not rotating their pepper very often, and
|
|
|
|
potentially of servers which use a weak pepper - these servers may be attempting to
|
|
|
|
brute force the identifiers or use rainbow tables to mine the addresses. Similarly,
|
|
|
|
clients which support the ``none`` algorithm should consider at least warning the user
|
|
|
|
of the risks in sending identifiers in plain text to the identity server.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addresses are still potentially reversable using a calculated rainbow table given
|
|
|
|
some identifiers, such as phone numbers, common email address domains, and leaked
|
|
|
|
addresses are easily calculated. For example, phone numbers can have roughly 12
|
|
|
|
digits to them, making them an easier target for attack than email addresses.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Establishing associations
|
|
|
|
-------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The flow for creating an association is session-based.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Within a session, one may prove that one has ownership of a 3PID.
|
|
|
|
Once this has been established, the user can form an association between that
|
|
|
|
3PID and a Matrix user ID. Note that this association is only proved one way;
|
|
|
|
a user can associate *any* Matrix user ID with a validated 3PID,
|
|
|
|
i.e. I can claim that any email address I own is associated with
|
|
|
|
@billg:microsoft.com.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sessions are time-limited; a session is considered to have been modified when
|
|
|
|
it was created, and then when a validation is performed within it. A session can
|
|
|
|
only be checked for validation, and validation can only be performed within a
|
|
|
|
session, within a 24 hour period since its most recent modification. Any
|
|
|
|
attempts to perform these actions after the expiry will be rejected, and a new
|
|
|
|
session should be created and used instead.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To start a session, the client makes a request to the appropriate
|
|
|
|
``/requestToken`` endpoint. The identity server then sends a validation token
|
|
|
|
to the user, and the user provides the token to the client. The client then
|
|
|
|
provides the token to the appropriate ``/submitToken`` endpoint, completing the
|
|
|
|
session. At this point, the client should ``/bind`` the third party identifier
|
|
|
|
or leave it for another entity to bind.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Format of a validation token
|
|
|
|
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The format of the validation token is left up to the identity server: it
|
|
|
|
should choose one appropriate to the 3PID type. (For example, it would be
|
|
|
|
inappropriate to expect a user to copy a long passphrase including punctuation
|
|
|
|
from an SMS message into a client.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Whatever format the identity server uses, the validation token must consist of
|
|
|
|
at most 255 Unicode codepoints. Clients must pass the token through without
|
|
|
|
modification.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Email associations
|
|
|
|
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{email_associations_is_http_api}}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{v2_email_associations_is_http_api}}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Phone number associations
|
|
|
|
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{phone_associations_is_http_api}}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{v2_phone_associations_is_http_api}}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
General
|
|
|
|
~~~~~~~
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{associations_is_http_api}}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{v2_associations_is_http_api}}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Invitation storage
|
|
|
|
------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
An identity server can store pending invitations to a user's 3PID, which will
|
|
|
|
be retrieved and can be either notified on or look up when the 3PID is
|
|
|
|
associated with a Matrix user ID.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
At a later point, if the owner of that particular 3PID binds it with a Matrix user
|
|
|
|
ID, the identity server will attempt to make an HTTP POST to the Matrix user's
|
|
|
|
homeserver via the `/3pid/onbind`_ endpoint. The request MUST be signed with a
|
|
|
|
long-term private key for the identity server.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{store_invite_is_http_api}}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{v2_store_invite_is_http_api}}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ephemeral invitation signing
|
|
|
|
----------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To aid clients who may not be able to perform crypto themselves, the identity
|
|
|
|
server offers some crypto functionality to help in accepting invitations.
|
|
|
|
This is less secure than the client doing it itself, but may be useful where
|
|
|
|
this isn't possible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{invitation_signing_is_http_api}}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{v2_invitation_signing_is_http_api}}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. _`Unpadded Base64`: ../appendices.html#unpadded-base64
|
|
|
|
.. _`3PID Types`: ../appendices.html#pid-types
|
|
|
|
.. _`Signing JSON`: ../appendices.html#signing-json
|
|
|
|
.. _`/3pid/onbind`: ../server_server/%SERVER_RELEASE_LABEL%.html#put-matrix-federation-v1-3pid-onbind
|