[Standards] LAST CALL: XEP-0327 (Rayo)
fippo at goodadvice.pages.de
Sat Apr 11 20:19:37 UTC 2015
>> Yes. It is certainly better than doing something like uaCSTA (
>> over XMPP.
> I'll note as a preface to my below comments that CSTA is somewhat of a
> motivation for Rayo being the way it is: stupidly simple. CSTA had the ECMA
> treatment and turned into the monster that it is, which no-one with a
> turnover of < $100MM can realistically implement properly.
>> Example 1 uses node='urn:xmpp:rayo:call:1' -- this seems odd, this should
>> typically contain the client's node and not the urn of the specification.
>> Together with the text in 6.2.2 this looks like an invalid use of caps to
>> me. I'd suggest removing this, this might require changes to the
>> registration process in example 12.
> This was introduced at
> I would love to hear alternative suggestions for identifying the type of a
> Rayo entity (call or mixer).
calls and mixers should have different features and hence different caps
I am assuming it is easy to map caps hashes to caps. This can be tricky
to implement in some situations. In practice, you might hardcore the
caps hashes of rayo servers or calls so you can avoid the disco dance as
often as possible.
>> The use of directed presence is somewhat odd, I think this should be a
>> <message/>. The rationale for this seems to be having the presence track
>> the session status and allowing the call control server to notice if the
>> client closed its connected to the server unexpectedly.
> I figure you mean for an <offer/>? This is the point at which a new call
> entity comes online on the network, in much the same way as an IM user's
> resource comes online, and such a change in entity presence naturally fits
> with <presence/>. I'm not sure why this would be considered a message.
That's fine. This raises your xmppishness score even :-)
> If you mean for client registration (6.1), see below.
>> 6.1: the rationale for using presence and <show/> here is that subsequent
>> presence broadcasts which change the <show/> will also be sent to the rayo
>> server? If so then (surprise) it doesn't work due to the way
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6121#section-4.4.2 is written (surprise!)
>> It's not clear to me if there is a presence subscription between the
>> client and the rayo server.
> This functionality generally exists to permit a client to quiesce on
> shutdown. Adhearsion's behaviour is to send DND presence on SIGTERM, in
> order that the Rayo server not send it any new calls. It then waits for
> existing calls to clear, before finally shutting down. Additional SIGTERMs
> progress through the shutdown process faster, rejecting any new calls sent
> by a leaky server, and eventually hanging up existing calls before shutting
Did you consider sending unavailable without closing the stream? That
terminate your presence session but I don't think you're relying on the
behaviour of being an "active resource".
The only reason I can see for not doing this is that it makes it harder
to determine for the rayo server if that is coming from the client or is
sent from the server because the clients connection died.
> It is intended that a presence subscription be created for the purpose you
> describe above, but I agree this section could do with clarification. I
> would love to hear suggestions for how we might make that clearer.
How about a section showing that the rayo server subscribes to the users
presence (and possibly this creates a bidirectional subscription)?
I think the protocol should still work without relying on it, but it
gives the rayo server more information (such as a change of the user to
an away status) which a smart rayo server might take into account when
routing calls in multiclient/multidevice scenarios.
>> 6.2.1 Outbound Call: the link for dial command is broken.
> Fixed at
>> Example 22: I don't think using presence for this is appropriate. Here and
>> e.g. example 44. Active speaker detection is NOT a presence.
> All state changes for an entity are signalled using a change to presence
> like this. Presence is used as a generic event package. Alternative
Right. And this is what I am objecting. While we have done this in the
past, the "modern" thing is to use pubsub for it.
> proposals welcome that cover all such cases, but example 22 is not
> sufficiently different from the rest of the protocol to warrant specific
The alternative would be:
<message from='pubsub.shakespeare.lit' to='francisco at denmark.lit' id='foo'>
Due to the transient nature of ringing, you could use transient
<message from='pubsub.shakespeare.lit' to='francisco at denmark.lit'>
Arguably, more overhead.
> Again, these are events like any other, indicating a change in state of the
> resource. Thinking about it, this case is *somewhat* similar to XEP-0085,
> except that they are aggregated across entities at the mixer level and then
> disambiguated via an attribute. Again though, I don't think this is
> sufficiently different from other events to warrant specific treatment.
>> I think the whole presence stuff should work in a different way. The
>> client should have a directed presence exchange with the rayo server. And
>> inside that <iq/> or <message><pubsub/></message> should be used.
> Why do you think it should work differently? I'm happy for it to do so if
> there's a strong motivation, but I've yet to hear a convincing argument
> against the current scheme.
> IQ is used for command execution. IQ doesn't seem to jive with the idea of
> an event, though. I could perhaps learn to live with these being PubSub,
> but that's a humongous dependency for what is currently a very simple
basically you'd just use example 2 from xep-0060 instead of <presence/>.
Possibly, you could model the command part using xep-0060 as well but
that seems like overkill. Or you could use adhoc commands... but might
want to avoid forms. Too many solutions to a simple problem...
alot of it depends on the definition of a simple implementation.
>> Lance says this should use MUC.
> A dependency on XEP-0045 would kill this specification. I have no desire to
> go down that road.
You are halfway down already with the bidirectional exchange of directed
In fact, MUC might be appropriate in multi-agent scenarios even. But
afaics it should just work when used in a MUC (the call joins the MUC by
sending direct presence and someone inside the MUC accepts...).
>> It might be too late to fix that, depending on how widely this is
> We would have to bump the protocol version (which I guess a move to Draft
> would to anyway, to :1) and be careful about allowing a smooth upgrade
In general, we don't need to bump the protocol version just for moving
to draft. You just confused me with this.
Section 9 uses rayo:0 for discovery whereas rayo:1 is used everywhere
else. I presume rayo:0 is a glitch?
Oh... and section 8 (use cases) needs to be removed before this can move
to draft. Unless you volunteeer to write one, but I think that is
already sufficiently covered.
> path, but it's not absolutely out of the question. I don't, however, want
> to go down a rabbit hole without a particularly good reason.
Right. I do not think breaking code just to create a more "beautiful"
solution is worth it.
More information about the Standards