On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 10:51 AM, Kurt Zeilenga <kurt.zeile...@isode.com>wrote:
> I should note that we'll kill this one way or the other, even if there's no > negotiation. I just rather kill it by disrupting the negotiation. > > I just think it's really bad form to have non-negoiated extensions. > It's not a 100% non-negotiated extension. Negotiation is simply optional, and not documented in the specification. Accept is done by continuing RTT by replying to event='start' with an event='start'. Reject be done by rejecting an attempted event='start' with an event='stop' from the other end. I also must point out that at least one 911 systems integrator is already testing XMPP RTT, as a long-term replacement for deaf TDD/TTY, as a companion to RFC4103 / T.140 which is also considered for this use too as well. Thus, servers are encouraged to stick to server policy (i.e. bandwidth rate-limiting algorithms) rather than blocking the extension.
