[Standards] RTT: no negotiation of the feature
markybox at gmail.com
Fri Jun 24 15:53:19 UTC 2011
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 11:43 AM, Kurt Zeilenga <Kurt.Zeilenga at isode.com>wrote:
> > earlier? I think this will make most people happy, and will only add a
> > few lines to the spec. See for example XEP-0085, section 4:
> > http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0085.html
> > Kurt et cetra, would this be satisfactory in the short term?
Ok, it's not a painful change, and allows me to get the spec up sooner
before too many companies do damage with proprietary RTT. Kurt?
> It would at least mean XMPP RTT would now have a basic mechanism of
> discovering whether the other end supports RTT, and being able to restrain
> from sending RTT if the other end does not support RTT. This would not be
> the complete session negotiation algorithm, but would allay the cheif
> concern of Kurt.
> Correct, and it would allow for fall back to unextended XMPP if RTT was not
> available end-to-end, which I would think quite important in emergency and
> deaf communications.
Yes, but RTT is backwards compatible, so both RTT and non-RTT conversations
look exactly the same to a client that do not support RTT.
In fact, if one wanted, one can even have groupchat's with mixed RTT and
non-RTT perfectly, even though I don't explicitly mention support for group
chats because of the considerations I published at
linked from http://www.realjabber.org
Right now, RTT spec is defined for one-on-one conversations (even though the
RTT spec can be used verbatim for groupchats). I mentioned group chats in
the previous specification, but for simplicity I removed mention/support for
group chat even though the RTT protocol continues to be compatible for use
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Standards