Skip to content

MSC4296: Mentions for device IDs #4296

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

Draft
wants to merge 4 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

Johennes
Copy link
Contributor

@Johennes Johennes commented Jun 4, 2025

Signed-off-by: Johannes Marbach <n0-0ne+github@mailbox.org>
@Johennes Johennes force-pushed the johannes/device-id-mentions branch from d260c4a to 4f83735 Compare June 4, 2025 13:34
@Johennes Johennes marked this pull request as ready for review June 4, 2025 13:36
@Johennes Johennes changed the title MSCXXXX: Mentions for device IDs MSC4296: Mentions for device IDs Jun 4, 2025
@turt2live turt2live added proposal A matrix spec change proposal client-server Client-Server API kind:feature MSC for not-core and not-maintenance stuff needs-implementation This MSC does not have a qualifying implementation for the SCT to review. The MSC cannot enter FCP. push labels Jun 4, 2025
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Implementation requirements:

  • Client (sending)
  • Client (receiving)
  • Server

Comment on lines +7 to +9
be helpful, for instance, in cases where devices with different capabilities are participating
in the room and the sender wants to provide a hint on which devices the recipient should pick up
the message. This proposal makes it possible to mention specific devices via the existing
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Like what? What features would this support?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm planning to use this as a dependency for another proposal that I'm currently working out. I think it won't get much clearer before that, sorry (and it could possibly still be a bad idea after all).

Maybe I should have delayed publishing this proposal but it seemed atomic enough and I wanted to get feedback on it as early as possible. Your other comment below shows me that this wasn't entirely futile at least.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

No problem, I'm just unable to come up with plausible ideas myself! Looking forward to seeing it.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I was planning to use this in connection with MSC4300 and MSC4301 for device-to-device communication but it looks like the use case I had in mind may not materialize. I'll move this back into draft for the moment.


## Potential issues

None.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Would this be something more for bots to be using, rather than users? I'm trying to understand the client-side flow of how you'd mention a specific device. It certainly feels a bit odd for anything other than perhaps a security message from your server, to me.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes, in fact I'm planning to use this as a dependency for another proposal that involves bots. Sorry, this isn't clearer right now.

@Johennes Johennes marked this pull request as draft June 17, 2025 11:48
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
client-server Client-Server API kind:feature MSC for not-core and not-maintenance stuff needs-implementation This MSC does not have a qualifying implementation for the SCT to review. The MSC cannot enter FCP. proposal A matrix spec change proposal push
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants