Skip to content

Conversation

@toger5
Copy link

@toger5 toger5 commented Jul 10, 2025

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

@turt2live turt2live changed the title MSCXXX: MatrixRTC decline m.rtc.notify MSC4310: MatrixRTC decline m.rtc.notify Jul 10, 2025
@turt2live turt2live added proposal A matrix spec change proposal client-server Client-Server API kind:maintenance MSC which clarifies/updates existing spec needs-implementation This MSC does not have a qualifying implementation for the SCT to review. The MSC cannot enter FCP. labels Jul 10, 2025
@toger5 toger5 changed the title MSC4310: MatrixRTC decline m.rtc.notify MSC4310: MatrixRTC decline m.rtc.notification Jul 15, 2025
Copy link
Member

@dbkr dbkr left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Just a couple of comments as I saw this whilst reviewing the js-sdk PR.

- reason:

```json
"reason"?: "decline description"
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

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.

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

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.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

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-definedCan I call you later? Sorry can't talk now or 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)

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

As discussed somewere else, maybe a regular follow-up reply/message can be used for the reason?

Comment on lines 89 to 91
- 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.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

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?

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

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.

toger5 added 2 commits August 26, 2025 16:47
Signed-off-by: Timo K <[email protected]>
And other details.

Signed-off-by: Timo K <[email protected]>
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

All bubbles should have a background color, this is barely legible in dark mode.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

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.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The reason field was removed.

Conceptually this MSC will introduce an event, sent as a relation to the
`m.rtc.notification` event, which communicates a decline from one or more
parties. It can be used on clients to provide a good UX around a call decline
(stop ringing, play a decline sound, prompt the user with: "the call has been
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This feels wrong to me. I cannot see any other app that would play a specific song or a promp when the other person declines your call. That would be very rude.
A good UX would be to just stop ringing and not shame me that the other side rejected my call :D

@fkwp fkwp changed the title MSC4310: MatrixRTC decline m.rtc.notification MSC4310: MatrixRTC decline m.rtc.decline Sep 3, 2025

### Proposal (Changes)

This MSC proposes the `m.rtc.decline` event type, with a standard `m.reference`
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

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?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

client-server Client-Server API kind:maintenance MSC which clarifies/updates existing spec matrix-2.0 Required for Matrix 2.0 needs-implementation This MSC does not have a qualifying implementation for the SCT to review. The MSC cannot enter FCP. proposal A matrix spec change proposal

Projects

Status: Tracking for review

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

7 participants