[Standards] XEP-0301 Session handling

Mark Rejhon markybox at gmail.com
Wed Feb 29 01:13:38 UTC 2012


On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 7:04 PM, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter at stpeter.im>wrote:

> On 2/28/12 4:47 PM, Mark Rejhon wrote:

[snip]

> *Use Case Example #1:*
> > Alice messages Bob.  Alice enables real-time text by clicking a button.
> > On Bob machine, when his software receives an <rtt> element for the
> > first time, the software can prompt Bob to enable the real-time text
> > feature, as follows:
> > /**** Alice is now sending real-time text.  Click [Accept] to transmit
> > your typing live too./
> >
> > *Use Case Example #2:*
> > Alice messages Bob.   Alice enables real-time text by clicking a button.
> > Bob's IM client is preconfigured to automatically accept real-time text.
> > Upon receiving Alice's real-time text in <rtt>, Bob automatically
> > enables sending of <rtt>.  A notification message simply gets displayed
> > in the message history:
> > *** /Alice has activated real-time text. / /Your typing is now being
> > transmitted live./
> >
> > If this method is done, then it is not necessary to worry about using
> > the event='start' / event='cancel' for the purposes of RTT-specific
> > session signalling, and I can just remove it from XEP-0301 to simplify.
> >  Also, it is noted that XEP-0301 section 5 already provides a mechanism
> > for a client to detect whether the remote client has RTT support, before
> > transmitting outgoing unsolicited <rtt>.

[snip]
>
>  Mark, the model you're searching for is what we use in XEP-0085. Please
> take a look at the text there and see if you can re-use it for RTT.


Hello,
Yes, but it does not answer the question of how to negotiate the enabling
of RTT.   There are three angles that are covered, two of them answered,
and one of them not.

*[Answered] **Matter of Compatibility between XEP-0301 and XEP-0085:*
XEP-0085, if used, is very easily complementary with RTT.  You just simply
send <composing/> with the first <rtt/> element transmitted from any other
state (i.e. <active/> or <paused/>) .... I should add a sentence about this
general practice.

*[Answered] Matter of Simplifying XEP-0305 by removing its session
signalling*
XEP-0085 can easily justify the removal of the *event='start'* and *
event='cancel'*
*
*
*[To Discuss] Matter of negotiation of activation of RTT feature*
/However/, XEP-0085 doesn't answer the question of an appropriate
negotiation model for deciding whether or not to enable RTT for a chat
session.  (RTT is most ideal when both ends enable it)  Peter, do you think
that my use case examples seem appropriate behaviour?

Comments would be appreciated about this.

Thanks,
Mark Rejhon
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20120228/83757fbc/attachment.html>


More information about the Standards mailing list