MSC4075: MatrixRTC Call Ringing

proposals/4075-call-notify-event.md

@@ -0,0 +1,165 @@
+# MSC4075: MatrixRTC Call Ringing
+
+It is important that a call initiated on clientA can make targeted clients ring.
+This is of interest in 1:1 Rooms/Calls but also in bigger rooms ringing can be desired.
+
+Legacy calls are using room events to negotiate the call.
+A client could use the initial steps in the negotiation to also make the phone ring.
+
+With matrix RTC based calls this signalling is done over state events.
+Also matrix RTC enables large group calls which makes it very
+desirable to have more configurations over the ringing process.
+
+## Proposal
+
+A new event `m.call.notify` is proposed which can be sent by a client that
+wants to start a call. This event is added to the push rules for clients which
+support calling so they get push notifications. The push rules for intentional
+mentions make sure no unnecessary push notification is sent.
+
+This event contains the following fields by leveraging intentional mentions.
+
+```json
+{
+  "content": {
+    "application": "m.call | m.other_matrix_session_type | ...",
+    "m.mentions": {"user_ids": [], "room": true | false},
+    "notify_type": "ring | notification",
+    // Application specific data,
+    // optional fields to disambiguate which session
+    // this notify event belongs to:
+
+    // for application = "m.call":
+    "call_id": "some_id",
+  }
+}
+```
+
+In the following we define **call** as any matrix RTC session with the
+same `"application"` and the same application specific data.
+In the case of `"m.call"`, the same `"call_id"`.
+
+On retrieval, the event should not be rendered in the timeline.
+But if the notify conditions (listed below) apply,
+the client has to inform the user about the **call** with an appropriate user flow.
+For `notify_by == "ring"` some kind of sound is required
+(except if overwritten by another client specific setting),
+for `notify_by == "notification"` a visual indication is enough.
+This visual indication should be more than an unread indicator
+and similar to a notification banner.
+This is not enforced by the spec however and ultimately a client choice.
+
+Ringing (or notifying) should happen only if all these conditions apply:\
+
+- `m.call.notify` content:\
+  If the user is not part of the `m.mentions` section as defined in
+  [MSC3952](https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-spec-proposals/pull/3952)
+  this event can be ignored. (Push notifications are automatically filtered
+  so this only is important for events received via a sync)
+- Local notification settings:\
+  If the room is set to silent, it will never play a ring sound. A `m.call.notify`
+  event will at most be used to mark the room as unread or update the rooms
+  "has active **call** icon". (the exact behavior is up to the client)
+- Currently playing a ring sound (room timeline):\
+  If the user already received a ring event for this **call** and is playing
+  the ring sound any incoming `m.call.notify` for the same **call**
+  should be ignored. If the user failed to pick up and a new `m.call.notify`
+  arrives for the same room the device should ring again.
+- Current user is a member of the the **call** (room state):\
+  None of the devices should ring if they receive a `m.call.notify` if the
+  rooms state `m.call.member` event of the user contains a membership for
+  the **call** in the `m.call.notify` event.
+  This includes stopping the current ring sound if the room state updates so
+  this condition is true.
+- If a notify event is received in "real time":\
+  Notify events that are older then **10 seconds** are ignored (using the local
+  timestamp computed via `unsigned.age`).\
+  Otherwise a clients syncing for the first time would ring for outdated call events.
+  In general ringing only makes sense in "real time". A 10 second syncing latency
+  is allowed. Any client which is not able to receive the event in this period should
+  not ring to prohibit (annoying/misleading/irrelevant) outdated rings.
+
+Sending a `m.call.notify` should happen only if all of these conditions apply:
+
+- If the user deliberately wants to send a new notify event
+  (It is possible to send a `m.call.notify` for an ongoing call if that
+  makes sense. Starting a call ahead of time, planning in a small group,
+  ringing another set of users at a specific time so they don't forget to join.
+  Ringing one specific user again who missed joining during the first ring.)
+- If the user has not yet received a `m.call.notify` for the **call** they want to
+  participate but the other condition applies. (So the obvious case is, that this
+  is the first user in a new call session).
+
+## Alternatives
+
+It would be possible to use the call member room state events to determine a call start.
+The logic would be as following:
+_If we receive an event we check if  are already other members
+(call.member events) for the call. In case there is not we make the phone ring._
+
+Pros:
+
+- This would not require any new event.
+- The clients can not "forget" to ring the others about the when they
+  start a new call. Because they would automatically send an event by joining.
+- There would be less traffic. With the proposed solution the first one who joins
+  needs to send a `m.call.notify` event and a `m.call.member` state event.
+
+
+Cons
+
+- All the ringing conditions run on the receiving user. There is no way for the
+  user who start the call to decide if it should ring the other participants.
+  (Consider a very large room where I want to start a call only for the interested
+  ones who want to discuss a side project. It would be very annoying if the
+  initiator could not control how and who is going to be informed about that call.)
+
+- Additionally, it is not as flexible as the proposed separate event.
+  Which allows an external instance (a meeting organizer bot) to
+  just ring all the users which are invited to a meeting without needing to
+  participate in the call with a `m.call.member` event of the call.
+- Push notifications would need to be sent for EVERY `m.call.member` state event
+  update. For each joining and leaving user and for each membership update during
+  a call (due to a SFU (single forwarding unit) change, changing devices
+  (could even happen for screen shares if the screen share is implemented as a
+  separate participating device) or matrix RTC business logic of the call.)
+  This could result in a lot of push notification with no obvious/simple way to
+  filter them.
+- It would require bloating the `call.member` event if the `notify_type` or a
+  specific list of users to notify want to be specified.
+- It would not make it possible to ring without participating.
+
+### Explicitly unspecified conditions
+
+- The duration of the ring sound is a deliberately chosen
+ to be a clients decision.
+- The ring sound is a client choice as well. (It was considered to
+ add the ring sound to the notify event but how "ringing" actually should
+ look like is intentionally in control of the receiver. So that users can use
+ clients that suit them in terms of accessibility and personal taste.)
+
+## Security considerations
+
+This is another timeline event where any room participant can send a push
+notification to others. Since this will make clients ring this has a higher
+effect on the receiver. Since ringing has to obey the mute settings, it is
+very easy for the targeted users to mitigate the "attack". It can be very
+much compared to spamming a room with "@room" messages.
+
+The default power level for `m.call.notify` is `50` and equivalent to the default
+power level required for `m.call.member` state events.
+
+Additional control is provided indirectly with the use of intentional mentions.
+Setting `"notifications":{"room":X}` allows to choose `X` for the power required
+level to ring the whole room.
+
+## Unstable prefix
+
+While this MSC is not present in the spec, clients and widgets should:
+
+- Use `org.matrix.msc4075.` in place of `m.` in all new identifiers of this MSC.
+(`m.call.notify`)
+
+## Dependencies
+
+This MSC builds on Intentional Mentions [MSC3952](https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-spec-proposals/pull/3952).