Well one thing missed is that the emergency responder (9-1-1 PSAP) is always responding. So I think you should have it that the first message from EITHER party should be able to use <rtt/> to ping.
What about if you are in the middle of a message and it becomes clear that it should move to rtt? On Jul 11, 2012, at 10:27 PM, Dave Cridland wrote: > OK, so, loosely: > > 1) If you know the remote disco (via caps, typically, or by a previous > query), then you can follow that. Sending protocol to a remote endpoint that > you *know* cannot support it is not going to make people happy. This will > cover anyone in your roster, and indeed almost anyone you know to be online. > > 2) If you do not know the remote disco, then sending an "exploratory" <rtt/>, > as in XEP-0085, seems reasonable, in the first message (only) in a > conversation. This would most certainly include emergency services. > > 3) If, on the other hand, you're responding to a message - that is, your > first message is a reply to another - then you'd only use <rtt/> if the > contact does. > > There is one edge case - where the contact does not advertise RTT, yet is > sending it to you. In this case, you print out every XEP, roll them up, track > down the implementor, and whack them over the head. > > What am I missing? > > Dave. > > On Jul 11, 2012 3:03 PM, "Mark Rejhon" <marky...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 2012-07-11 5:55 AM, "Dave Cridland" <d...@cridland.net> wrote: > > > > At the risk of opening a whole new can of worms, if you're modelling an RTT > > conversation as a textphone call, don't you want to be ringing, and > > accepting the call, via Jingle? > > > > If it's modelled as an enhancement of existing IM text chat, then using > > XEP-0085's model, with it's fallback from disco and caps seems fine - > > though it is a fallback from disco, not a replacement. > > Both. I am designing for both scenario. I am an ardent advocate of maximizing > flexibility "where reasonable". There are extenuating use cases in both > directions (and other directions too!) > > In several years, who knows -- ringing could be added as a separate XEP for > enhanced RTT mode (which may include HTML and last message editing, etc.) > depending on how the real world usage evolves. > > Priority is keeping it as simple as a chat state, AND deliverable if message > body is deliverable (which means even in private mode). A whole > implementation can just follow "Basic Real Time Text" (without key intervals) > and ignore 90 percent of the document. The protocol section is only a > quarter the size of the rest of document (for good reason) > > Mark Rejhon
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
