|
|
|
@ -135,7 +135,7 @@ the transfer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Capability Advertisment
|
|
|
|
|
This proposal also introduces a field on `m.call.invite` and `m.call.answer` events at the top
|
|
|
|
|
level with the key `capabilities`, whose value is an object. This object has one recognised key,
|
|
|
|
|
level with the key `capabilities`, whose value is an object. We define the key,
|
|
|
|
|
`m.call.transferee` which, if set to true, states that the sender of the event supports the
|
|
|
|
|
`m.call.replaces` event and therefore supports being transferred to another destination.
|
|
|
|
|
For example:
|
|
|
|
@ -164,6 +164,9 @@ the `capabilities` object is missing altogether, it should be assumed that the
|
|
|
|
|
sender of the invite or answer does not support call transfers and clients should
|
|
|
|
|
reflect this in the UI accordingly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We also define a capability called `m.call.dtmf`. Clients should only display UI for sending
|
|
|
|
|
DTMF during a call if the other party advertises this capability (boolean value `true`).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Potential issues
|
|
|
|
|
A call transfer is fairly complex and involves a lot of round-trips and state on clients, and
|
|
|
|
|
is fairly complex for clients to implement, in comparison to the rest of the VoIP spec which
|
|
|
|
|