Allowing knocks to restricted rooms (#3787)

Combinatorials part 2

Author: turt2live

proposals/3787-knockable-restricted-rooms.md

@@ -0,0 +1,85 @@
+# MSC3787: Allowing knocks to restricted rooms
+
+[Join rules](https://spec.matrix.org/v1.1/client-server-api/#mroomjoin_rules) define what conditions
+a user must meet in order to, well, join a room. With the current setup it is impossible to have more
+than one rule active at a time, which makes it difficult to allow anyone from room X to join, but also
+join if their knock was accepted. The room would instead have to choose which condition it favoured.
+
+Though generic approaches to allow arbitrary mixing of join rules are possible, such as those noted
+in [MSC3613](https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-spec-proposals/pull/3613) and
+[MSC3386](https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-spec-proposals/pull/3386), this proposal aims to fill
+an immediate gap where rooms cannot allow knocks and also other join conditions through `restricted`
+join rules. This is done by introducing yet another join rule, per the discussion on MSC3613 (which
+was rejected in favour of the stop-gap approach described by this MSC).
+
+Alternative MSCs, such as [MSC3386](https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-spec-proposals/pull/3386),
+seek to redesign the join rules structure entirely. This proposal is intended to fill a notable gap
+while more complex MSCs work out their specifics.
+
+## Proposal
+
+In a new room version, we introduce a new `join_rule` for the
+[`m.room.join_rules`](https://spec.matrix.org/v1.2/client-server-api/#mroomjoin_rules) event. This
+new join rule would be called `knock_restricted` and inherit all of the behaviour of `knock` and
+`restricted` - whichever of the two join rules is satisfied first allows a prospective member to
+join. For example, a user can simply knock on the room (exactly as if the room was set up as `knock`
+only), or if they met the `allow` conditions in the join rules then they could join without invite
+(exactly as if the room was set up as `restricted` only).
+
+The effect on the [authorization rules](https://spec.matrix.org/v1.2/rooms/v9/#authorization-rules)
+is as follows:
+
+* Rule 4.3.5 (handling of `m.room.member` joins) gets amended to say "If `join_rule` is `restricted`
+  or `knock_restricted`:"
+* Rule 4.7.1 (handling of `m.room.member` knocks) gets amended to say "If the `join_rule` is anything
+  other than `knock` or `knock_restricted`, reject."
+
+No other changes are required within the specification. Implementations might need to modify their
+checks to ensure they appropriately look up the `allow` key of an `m.room.join_rules` event when the
+`join_rule` is `restricted` *or* `knock_restricted` though.
+
+## Potential issues
+
+As a point of bikeshed, the name `knock_restricted` is not perfect. Alternative naming is possible,
+however the author points the reader to the introduction where this MSC is outlined as a stop-gap
+solution pending proper/formal addressing of the problem statement.
+
+Clients will also need special rendering for this join rule. Such a user interface might be:
+
+```
+This room is:
+[ ] Public
+[x] Private
+
+Join rules (disabled when Public):
+[x] Allow members of `#space:example.org` to join
+[x] Allow knocking
+```
+
+## Alternatives
+
+[MSC3613](https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-spec-proposals/pull/3613) is an obvious candidate
+given it paved the path for this MSC. Ultimately, MSC3613 was rejected on not technical grounds but
+rather pragmatic grounds: while we could support a system of mixing different join rules, the current
+set of join rules don't make sense to mix outside of `knock`+`restricted`. So, we introduce a new
+join rule for the exactly one useful case of mixing join rules.
+
+[MSC3386](https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-doc/pull/3386) and similar ideas favour a complete
+rebuild of the join rules system. While a potentially great change for Matrix, it doesn't feel proper
+for the short term.
+
+## Security considerations
+
+This MSC does not introduce too many new topics, so is not at risk of the same security considerations
+which would normally accompany a new join rule. At best, this MSC makes it possible for a room to be
+"less private" because of allowing knocks and other join conditions in the same room, however the rooms
+using this setup will be doing so deliberately.
+
+## Unstable prefix
+
+Implementations of this MSC should use `org.matrix.msc3787` for the room version, using room version 9
+for all other behaviours of the room.
+
+## Dependencies
+
+No relevant dependencies.