Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

MSC1753: client-server capabilities API #1753

Merged
merged 7 commits into from
Jan 9, 2019
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension

Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
117 changes: 117 additions & 0 deletions proposals/1753-capabilities.md
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,117 @@
# MSC1753: client-server capabilities API

A mechanism is needed for clients to interrogate servers to establish whether
particular operations can be performed.

For example, users may not be able to change their password if a server is
configured to authenticate against a separate system, in which case it is
nonsensical to offer the user such an option.

## Proposal

### `GET /_matrix/client/r0/capabilities`

We will add a new endpoint to the client-server API: `GET
/_matrix/client/r0/capabilities`. The endpoint will be authenticated as normal
via an access token.

The server should reply with a list of supported features, as shown:

```json
{
"capabilities": {
"m.capability_one": {}
}
}
```

The keys of the `capabilities` object are capability identifiers. As with
other identifiers in the Matrix protocol, the `m.` prefix is reserved for
definition in the Matrix specification; other values can be used within an
organisation following the Java package naming conventions.

The values of the `capabilities` object will depend on the capability
identifier, though in general the empty object will suffice.

### Initial capability identifiers
richvdh marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved

As a starting point, a single capability identifier is proposed:
`m.change_password`, which should be considered supported if it is possible to
change the user's password via the `POST /_matrix/client/r0/account/password`
API.

The value of the `capabilities` object in the response should be the empty
object.

### Fallback behaviour

Clients will need to be aware of servers which do not support the new endpoint,
and fall back to their current behaviour if they receive a 404 response.

### Suitable applications

In general, capabilities advertised via this endpoint should depend in some way
on the state of the user or server - in other words, they will be inherently
"optional" features in the API.

This endpoint should *not* be used to advertise support for experimental or
unstable features, which is better done via `/client/versions` (see
[MSC1497](https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-doc/issues/1497)).

Examples of features which might reasonably be advertised here include:

* Whether the server supports user presence.

* Whether the server supports other optional features. The following could be
made optional via this mechanism:
* Room directory
* URL previews

* Policy restricitions, such as:
* Whether certain types of content are permitted on this server.
* The number of rooms you are allowed in.
* Configured ratelimits.

Features which might be better advertised elsewhere include:

* Support for e2e key backups
([MSC1219](https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-doc/issues/1219)) - list in
`/client/versions`.

* Support for lazy-loading of room members - list in `/client/versions`.

* Media size limits - list in `/media/r0/config`, because the media server may
be a separate process.

* Optional transports/encodings for the CS API - probably better handled via
HTTP headers etc.

* Variations in room state resolution - this is implied via the room version
(which is in the `m.room.create` event).

## Tradeoffs
richvdh marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved

One alternative would be to provide specific ways of establishing support for
each operation: for example, a client might send an `GET
/_matrix/client/r0/account/password` request to see if the user can change
their password. The concern with this approach is that this could require a
large number of requests to establish which entries should appear on a menu or
dialog box.

Another alternative is to provide a generic query mechanism where the client
can query for specific capabilities it is interested in. However, this adds
complication and makes it harder to discover capability identifiers.

## Potential issues

None yet identified.

## Security considerations

None yet identified.

## Conclusion

We propose adding a new endpoint to the Client-Server API, which will allow
clients to query for supported operations so that they can decide whether to
expose them in their user-interface.