[Jingle] decision needed on senders="none"?

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at stpeter.im
Sat Apr 4 19:38:17 CDT 2009


Attempting once again to finish off this topic. :)

On 3/30/09 4:24 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> On 3/30/09 4:14 PM, Olivier Crête wrote:
>> On Mon, 2009-03-30 at 16:09 -0600, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>>> On 3/21/09 6:07 PM, Olivier Crête wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 2009-03-22 at 00:29 +0200, Olivier Crête wrote:
>>>>> So as a short summary, I think Sjoerd and I agree on hold now. I just
>>>>> have some clarifications.
>>>> Also, I just noticed that "unhold" and "unmute" are the same "active"
>>>> message, this is problematic is this case:
>>>>
>>>> I'm in a conf call (lets say I'm calling a special client that just
>>>> mixes the sound from every clients that call it).
>>>> 1. I mute the call (I'm listening to other people talking).
>>>> 2. I receive another call.,
>>>> 3. I hold the first call to answer the second one.
>>>> 4. I hangup the second call and try to unhold the first one.
>>>>
>>>> Expected: the call should be muted but not held
>>>> Current status: it is unheld and unmuted...
>>> Why can't the state transitions be mute->hold->mute?
>>>
>>> As I said, I'm open to unhold and unmute if we need them. I'm just
>>> trying to figure out if we need them. :)
>> Right, I always saw mute and hold as orthogonal states, but if they part
>> of the same active-mute-hold continum, than the current messages make
>> sense.
> 
> When I chatted with Rob earlier, he suggested to me that hold means
> mute+ignore (I'm not sending and I'm not listening), instead of mute as
> I'm not sending and hold as I'm not listening. How this ties in with
> hold music is anyone's guess, because when I put you on hold I might
> send you media. In that case I would agree with you that the two are
> orthogonal and we'd need unhold and unmute.

Given the possible existence of hold music / media, I would say that we
could define things as follows:

MUTE = I won't send any media to you, but I'll keep processing any media
you send to me

UNMUTE = I might once again send media to you

HOLD = I won't process any media you send to me, but I might send media
to you

UNHOLD = I'll once again process any media you send to me

MUTE+HOLD = I won't send any media to you and I won't process any media
you send to me

ACTIVE = I might send you media and I'll process any media you send to me

I think that part of the confusion comes from the fact that HOLD has
both a social meaning (you won't be receiving media from me = the person
on the other end, but you might be receiving media from some sort of
automated entity) and a technical meaning (my client is going to ignore
the media you send to me), whereas MUTE has only a technical meaning (my
client is not going to send you any media, whether it is generated by me
the person or some automated entity).

For complete clarity, I'd be in favor of adding UNMUTE and UNHOLD, and
retaining ACTIVE.

Objections?

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 6751 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Url : http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/jingle/attachments/20090404/0b19e6fb/attachment-0001.bin 


More information about the Jingle mailing list