|
|
|
@ -53,10 +53,23 @@ the spec. On balance this seems unlikely and in the worst case those
|
|
|
|
|
implementors could add the change to a subsequent room version, eventually
|
|
|
|
|
reaching spec consistency as older room versions are deprecated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Another scenario is that a client may redact events according to the spec as is
|
|
|
|
|
and persist prev_content through the redaction, thereby diverting from that on
|
|
|
|
|
the server(s). Client authors will have to update their code to drop
|
|
|
|
|
```prev_content``` - however, given that prev_content should not be used in
|
|
|
|
|
important calculations and/or visualisations, this ought to be relatively
|
|
|
|
|
uninvaisive change.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Security considerations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am unaware of any security issues related to this proposal, but can certainly
|
|
|
|
|
see issues with a precedent that the federation deviates from the spec.
|
|
|
|
|
A further reason to support removal of ```prev_content``` is the case where a
|
|
|
|
|
malicious user adds illegal or abusive content into a state event and then
|
|
|
|
|
overwrites that state event. The content would then be preserved through the
|
|
|
|
|
redaction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Additionally, there are plenty of reasons to have security concerns over a
|
|
|
|
|
precedent that the federation can deviate from the spec.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Conclusions
|
|
|
|
|
Removing ```prev_content``` is pragmatic response to the current situation. It
|
|
|
|
|