Repository navigation
Conversation
turt2live
changed the title
m.rtc.notifym.rtc.notify
turt2live
added
proposal
toger5
changed the title
m.rtc.notifym.rtc.notification
Signed-off-by: Timo K <toger5@hotmail.de>
Signed-off-by: Timo K <toger5@hotmail.de>
Signed-off-by: Timo K <toger5@hotmail.de>
dbkr
left a comment
dbkr
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Just a couple of comments as I saw this whilst reviewing the js-sdk PR.
| - reason: | ||
|
|
||
| ```json | ||
| "reason"?: "decline description" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'd fairly strongly vote against a string reason field: we have a collection of these string fields in the protocol, mostly not used for anything, and when we do they i18n poorly and we're trying to replace them. I'd suggest removing it unless we actually have a concrete use case for it, in which case spec some standard codes please.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That of course also works. The codes sound like a good idea but probably also worth waiting until we have a concrete idea what we want here.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think the reason is very important.
Declining a call is very rude, usually people would just silence their phone and let it ring until it times out.
If it is someone you know you will decline and immedialty send a text to explain why you cannot answer.
The decline icoming call usual experience is:
- Silence the call
- Decline
- Decline with a message , pre-defined
Can I call you later?Sorry can't talk nowor a custom one.
So there is a clear use case for reason, it is common to the decline experience.
What we miss is the Silence call use-case (silence on my other devices if any)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
As discussed somewere else, maybe a regular follow-up reply/message can be used for the reason?
| - For group rings, on receipt of a decline from a participant, update that | ||
| participant’s state. The ring should continue until at least one participant | ||
| accepts or all have declined/timeout. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This implies "hunt group" like semantics where you're trying to establish a 1:1 call with any one member of a group. This surprises me since MatrixRTC calls are first & foremost group calls, so I'd expect the default behaviour to be that it rings for everyone until they answer/decline/time out maybe?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is phrased a bit unfortunatly. It was referencing the ring feedback on the sender side. But I am not sure if this is even relevant in the MSC or can be left as a client decision.
Signed-off-by: Timo K <toger5@hotmail.de>
And other details. Signed-off-by: Timo K <toger5@hotmail.de>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
All bubbles should have a background color, this is barely legible in dark mode.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The reason field should be removed.
| - relation: `"m.relates_to": {"rel_type": "m.reference", "event_id": "$call_notification_event_id"}` | ||
|
|
||
| The `m.relates_to` field allows referencing the original `m.rtc.notification` event. | ||
| The optional reason can provide a message to the user receiving the decline. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The reason field was removed.
fkwp
changed the title
m.rtc.notificationm.rtc.decline
|
|
||
| ### Proposal (Changes) | ||
|
|
||
| This MSC proposes the `m.rtc.decline` event type, with a standard `m.reference` |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sould the m.rtc.decline also uses intentional mention, to be symetrical to the m.rtc.notification event?
Like that Apps that woke up to ring, would woke up to stop ringing?
ara4n
added
the
matrix-2.0
|
This is obsoleted and now included in #4075 |
turt2live
added
the
obsolete
8 participants
rendered
name: Proposal ready for review
about: A proposal that is ready for review by the core team and community.
title: ''
labels: proposal, proposal-in-review
assignees: ''
Pull Request Checklist
#matrix-spec:matrix.org to
get feedback on this PR.