From 48f9670b87ae35e734f524e9f959d8240df1ce52 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Erik Johnston Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2015 10:59:28 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] More comments on auth chain resolution --- drafts/erikj_federation.rst | 15 ++++++++++++++- 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/drafts/erikj_federation.rst b/drafts/erikj_federation.rst index 68087b2b..094d63e5 100644 --- a/drafts/erikj_federation.rst +++ b/drafts/erikj_federation.rst @@ -241,7 +241,20 @@ Auth chain resolution **TODO**: If an auth check fails, or if we get told something we accepted should have been rejected, we need to try and determine who is right. - +Both should inform the other of what they think the current auth chain is. If +either are missing auth events that they know are valid (through authorization +and state resolution) they process the missing events as usual. + +If either side notice that the other has accepted an auth events we think +should be rejected (for reasons *not* in their auth chain), that server should +inform the other with suitable proof. + +The proofs can be: + +- An *event chain* that shows an auth event is *not* an ancestor of the event. +- Given an event (and event chain?) showing that authorization had been revoked. + + State Resolution ----------------