archive
/
matrix-spec-proposals
mirror of https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-spec-proposals
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

MSC2746: Improved VoIP Signalling (#2746)

Browse Source
dbkr/2746-fix-typos
David Baker 1 year ago committed by Andrew Morgan
parent 564638f4cf
commit ea715b7a3f
1 changed files with 345 additions and 0 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File

345
proposals/2746-reliable-voip.md
Unescape Escape View File

@ -0,0 +1,345 @@
# MSC2746: Improved Signalling for 1:1 VoIP
Historically, Matrix has basic support for signalling 1:1 WebRTC calls which suffer a number of shortcomings:
* If several devices try to answer the same call, there is no way for them to determine clearly
that the caller has set up the call with a different device, and no way for the caller to
determine which candidate events map to which answer.
* Hangup reasons are often incorrect.
* There is confusion and no clear guidance on how clients should determine whether an incoming
invite is stale or not.
* There is no support for renegotiation of SDP, for changing ICE candidates / hold/resume
functionality, etc.
* There is no distinction between rejecting a call and ending it, which means that in trying
to reject a call, a client can inadvertantly cause a call that has been sucessfully set up
on a different device to be hung up.
## Proposal
### Change the `version` field in all VoIP events to `"1"`
The version property is changed to `"1"` in all existing VoIP events
([`m.call.answer`](https://spec.matrix.org/v1.5/client-server-api/#mcallanswer),
[`m.call.candidates`](https://spec.matrix.org/v1.5/client-server-api/#mcallcandidates),
[`m.call.hangup`](https://spec.matrix.org/v1.5/client-server-api/#mcallhangup)
[`m.call.invite`](https://spec.matrix.org/v1.5/client-server-api/#mcallinvite)). Note
that this changes the type of the `version` field from an integer to a string, as
described in the [Unstable Prefix](#unstable-prefix) section.
This will be used to determine whether devices support this new version of the protocol. For example,
clients can use this field to know whether to expect an `m.call.select_answer` event from their
opponent. If clients see events with `version` other than `0` or `"1"` (including, for example, the numeric
value `1`), they should treat these the same as if they had `version` == `"1"`.
Note that this implies any and all future versions of VoIP events should be backwards-compatible.
If it does become necessary to introduce a non backwards-compatible VoIP spec, the intention would
be for it to simply use a separate set of event types.
### Define the configurations of WebRTC streams and tracks
The [spec](https://spec.matrix.org/v1.5/client-server-api/#voice-over-ip) does not currently define
the WebRTC streams and tracks that should be sent. Under this proposal,
clients are expected to send one stream with one track of kind `audio` (creating a
voice call). They can optionally send a second track in the same stream of kind
`video` (creating a video call).
Clients implementing this specification use the first stream and will ignore any streamless tracks. Note that
in the Javascript WebRTC API, this means `addTrack()` must be passed two parameters: a track and a stream,
not just a track, and in a video call the stream must be the same for both audio and video track.
A client may send other streams and tracks but the behaviour of the other party with respect to presenting
such streams and tracks is undefined.
This follows the existing known implementations of v0 VoIP.
### Add `invitee` field to [`m.call.invite`](https://spec.matrix.org/v1.5/client-server-api/#mcallinvite)
This allows for the following use cases:
* Placing a call to a specific user in a room where other users are also present.
* Placing a call to oneself.
The field should be added for all invites where the target is a specific user, and should be set
to the Matrix user ID of that user. Invites without an `invitee`
field are defined to be intended for any member of the room other than the sender of the event.
Clients should consider an incoming call if they see a non-expired invite event where the `invitee` field is either
absent or equal to their user's Matrix ID, however they should evaluate whether or not to ring based on their
user's trust relationship with the callers and/or where the call was placed. As a starting point, it is
suggested that clients ignore call invites from users in public rooms. It is strongly recommended that
when clients do not ring for an incoming call invite, they still display the call invite in the room and
annotate that it was ignored.
### Add `party_id` to all VoIP events
Whenever a client first participates in a new call, it generates a `party_id` for itself to use for the
duration of the call. This needs to be long enough that the chance of a collision between multiple devices
both generating an answer at the same time generating the same party ID is vanishingly small: 8 uppercase +
lowercase alphanumeric characters is recommended. Parties in the call are identified by the tuple of
`(user_id, party_id)`.
The client adds a `party_id` field containing this ID to the top-level of the content of all VoIP events
it sends on the call, including `m.call.invite`. Clients use this to identify remote echo of their own
events: since a user may now call themselves, they can no longer ignore events from their own user. This
field also identifies different answers sent by different clients to an invite, and matches `m.call.candidates`
events to their respective answer/invite.
A client implementation may choose to use the device ID used in end-to-end cryptography for this purpose,
or it may choose, for example, to use a different one for each call to avoid leaking information on which
devices were used in a call (in an unencrypted room) or if a single device (ie. access token) were used to
send signalling for more than one call party.
A grammar for `party_id` is defined [below](#specify-exact-grammar-for-voip-ids).
### Introduce `m.call.select_answer`
This event is sent by the caller's client once it has decided which other
client to talk to, by selecting one of multiple possible incoming `m.call.answer`
events. Its `selected_party_id` field indicates the answer it's chosen. The `call_id`
and `party_id` of the caller is also included. If the callee's client sees a `select_answer` for an answer
with party ID other than the one it sent, it ends the call and informs the user the call
was answered elsewhere. It does not send any events. Media can start flowing
before this event is seen or even sent. Clients that implement previous
versions of this specification will ignore this event and behave as they did
before.
Example:
```
{
"type": "m.call.select_answer",
"content": {
"version": "1",
"call_id": "12345",
"party_id": "67890",
"selected_party_id": "111213",
}
}
```
### Introduce `m.call.reject`
* If the `m.call.invite` event has `version` `"1"`, a client wishing to reject the call
sends an `m.call.reject` event. This rejects the call on all devices, but if the calling
device sees an `answer` before the `reject`, it disregards the reject event and carries on. The reject has a
`party_id` just like an answer, and the caller sends a `select_answer` for it just like an
answer. If another client had already sent an answer and sees the caller select the
reject response instead of its answer, it ends the call.
* If the `m.call.invite` event has `version` `0`, the callee sends an `m.call.hangup` event.
Example:
```
{
"type": "m.call.reject",
"content" : {
"version": "1",
"call_id": "12345",
"party_id": "67890",
}
}
```
If the calling user chooses to end the call before setup is complete, the client sends `m.call.hangup`
as previously.
### Clarify what actions a client may take in response to an invite
The client may:
* Attempt to accept the call by sending an `m.call.answer`.
* Actively reject the call everywhere: send an `m.call.reject` as per above, which will stop the call from
ringing on all the user's devices and the caller's client will inform them that the user has
rejected their call.
* Ignore the call: send no events, but stop alerting the user about the call. The user's other
devices will continue to ring, and the caller's device will continue to indicate that the call
is ringing, and will time the call out in the normal way if no other device responds.
### Introduce more reason codes to [`m.call.hangup`](https://spec.matrix.org/v1.5/client-server-api/#mcallhangup)
* `ice_timeout`: The connection failed after some media was exchanged (as opposed to current
`ice_failed` which means no media connection could be established). Note that, in the case of
an ICE renegotiation, a client should be sure to send `ice_timeout` rather than `ice_failed` if
media had previously been received successfully, even if the ICE renegotiation itself failed.
* `user_hangup`: Clients must now send this code when the user chooses to end the call, although
for backwards compatability with version 0, a clients should treat an absence of the `reason`
field as `user_hangup`.
* `user_media_failed`: The client was unable to start capturing media in such a way that it is unable
to continue the call.
* `user_busy`: The user is busy. Note that this exists primarily for bridging to other networks such
as the PSTN. A Matrix client that receives a call whilst already in a call would not generally reject
the new call unless the user had specifically chosen to do so.
* `unknown_error`: Some other failure occurred that meant the client was unable to continue the call
rather than the user choosing to end it.
### Introduce `m.call.negotiate`
This introduces SDP negotiation semantics for media pause, hold/resume, ICE restarts and voice/video
call up/downgrading. Clients should implement & honour hold functionality as per WebRTC's
recommendation: https://www.w3.org/TR/webrtc/#hold-functionality
If both the invite event and the accepted answer event have `version` equal to `"1"`, either party may
send `m.call.negotiate` with a `description` field to offer new SDP to the other party. This event has
`call_id` with the ID of the call and `party_id` equal to the client's party ID for that call.
The caller ignores any negotiate events with `party_id` + `user_id` tuple not equal to that of the
answer it accepted and the callee ignores any negotiate events with `party_id` + `user_id` tuple not equal to that of the caller. Clients should use the `party_id` field to ignore the remote echo of their
own negotiate events.
This has a `lifetime` field as in `m.call.invite`, after which the sender of the negotiate event
should consider the negotiation failed (timed out) and the recipient should ignore it.
The `description` field is the same as the `offer` field in `m.call.invite` and `answer`
field in `m.call.answer` and is an `RTCSessionDescriptionInit` object as per
https://www.w3.org/TR/webrtc/#dom-rtcsessiondescriptioninit.
Example:
```
{
"type": "m.call.negotiate",
"content": {
"version": "1",
"call_id": "12345",
"party_id": "67890",
"lifetime": 10000,
"description": {
"sdp": "[some sdp]",
"type": "offer",
},
}
}
```
Once an `m.call.negotiate` event is received, the client must respond with another `m.call.negotiate`
event, with the SDP answer (with `"type": "answer"`) in the `description` property.
This MSC also proposes clarifying the `m.call.invite` and `m.call.answer` events to state that
the `offer` and `answer` fields respectively are objects of type `RTCSessionDescriptionInit`.
Hence the `type` field, whilst redundant in these events, is included for ease of working
with the WebRTC API and is mandatory. Receiving clients should not attempt to validate the `type` field,
but simply pass the object into the WebRTC API.
### Designate one party as 'polite'
In line with WebRTC perfect negotiation (https://w3c.github.io/webrtc-pc/#perfect-negotiation-example)
we introduce rules to establish which party is polite in the process of renegotiation. The callee is
always the polite party. In a glare situation, the politenes of a party is therefore determined by
whether the inbound or outbound call is used: if a client discards its outbound call in favour of
an inbound call, it becomes the polite party.
### Add explicit recommendations for call event liveness.
`m.call.invite` contains a `lifetime` field that indicates how long the offer is valid for. When
a client receives an invite, it should use the event's `age` field in the sync response plus the
time since it received the event from the homeserver to determine whether the invite is still valid.
The use of the `age` field ensures that incorrect clocks on client devices don't break calls.
If the invite is still valid *and will remain valid for long enough for the user to accept the call*,
it should signal an incoming call. The amount of time allowed for the user to accept the call may
vary between clients. For example, it may be longer on a locked mobile device than on an unlocked
desktop device.
The client should only signal an incoming call in a given room once it has completed processing the
entire sync response and, for encrypted rooms, attempted to decrypt all encrypted events in the
sync response for that room. This ensures that if the sync response contains subsequent events that
indicate the call has been hung up, rejected, or answered elsewhere, the client does not signal it.
If on startup, after processing locally stored events, the client determines that there is an invite
that is still valid, it should still signal it but only after it has completed a sync from the homeserver.
The minimal recommended lifetime is 90 seconds - this should give the user
enough time to actually pick up the call.
### Introduce recommendations for batching of ICE candidates
Clients should aim to send a small number of candidate events, with guidelines:
* ICE candidates which can be discovered immediately or almost immediately in the invite/answer
event itself (eg. host candidates). If server reflexive or relay candiates can be gathered in
a sufficiently short period of time, these should be sent here too. A delay of around 200ms is
suggested as a starting point.
* The client should then allow some time for further candidates to be gathered in order to batch them,
rather than sending each candidate as it arrives. A starting point of 2 seconds after sending the
invite or 500ms after sending the answer is suggested as a starting point (since a delay is natural
anyway after the invite whilst the client waits for the user to accept it).
### Mandate the end-of-candidates candidate
Define that an ICE candidate whose value is the empty string means that no more ICE candidates will
be sent, and mandate that clients must send such a candidate in an `m.call.candidates` message.
The WebRTC spec requires browsers to generate such a candidate, however note that at time of writing,
not all browsers do (Chrome does not, but does generate an `icegatheringstatechange` event). The
client should send any remaining candidates once candidate generation finishes, ignoring timeouts above.
This allows bridges to batch the candidates together when bridging to protocols that don't support
trickle ICE.
### Add DTMF
Add that Matrix clients can send DTMF as specified by WebRTC. The WebRTC standard as of August
2020 does not support receiving DTMF but a Matrix client can receive and interpret the DTMF sent
in the RTP payload.
### Specify exact grammar for VoIP IDs
`call_id`s and the newly introduced `party_id` are explicitly defined to be between 1
and 255 characters long, consisting of the characters `[0-9a-zA-Z._~-]`.
(Note that this matches the grammar of 'opaque IDs' from
[MSC1597](https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-spec-proposals/blob/rav/proposals/id_grammar/proposals/1597-id-grammar.md#opaque-ids),
and that of the `id` property of the
[`m.login.sso` flow schema](https://spec.matrix.org/v1.5/client-server-api/#definition-mloginsso-flow-schema).)
### Specify behaviour on room leave
If the client sees the user it is in a call with leave the room, the client should treat this
as a hangup event for any calls that are in progress. No specific requirement is given for the
situation where a client has sent an invite and the invitee leaves the room, but the client may
wish to treat it as a rejection if there are no more users in the room who could answer the call
(eg. the user is now alone or the `invitee` field was set on the invite).
The same behaviour applies when a client is looking at historic calls.
### Clarify that supported codecs should follow the WebRTC spec
The Matrix spec does not mandate particular audio or video codecs, but instead defers to the
WebRTC spec. A compliant matrix VoIP client will behave in the same way as a supported 'browser'
in terms of what codecs it supports and what variants thereof. The latest WebRTC specification
applies, so clients should keep up to date with new versions of the WebRTC specification whether
or not there have been any changes to the Matrix spec.
## Potential issues
* The ability to call yourself makes the protocol a little more complex for clients to implement,
and is somewhat of a special case. However, some of the necessary additions are also required for
other features so this MSC elects to make it possible.
* Clients must make a decision on whether to ring for any given call: defining this in the spec
would be cumbersome and would limit clients' ability to use reputation-based systems for this
decision in the future. However, having a call ring on one client and not the other because one
had categorised it as a junk call and not the other would be confusing for the user.
## Alternatives
* This MSC does not allow for ICE negotiation before the user chooses to answer the call. This can
make call setup faster by allowing connectivity to be established whilst the call is ringing. This
is problematic with Matrix since any device or user could answer the call, so it is not known which
device is going to answer before the user chooses to answer. It would also leak information on which
of a user's devices were online.
* We could define that the ID of a call is implicitly the event ID of the invite event rather than
having a specific `call_id` field. This would mean that a client would be unable to know the ID of
a call before the it received the response from sending the invite event, which could complicate
implementations. There is probably no compelling reason to change this.
* `m.call.select_answer` was chosen such that its name reflect the intention of the event. `m.call.ack`
is more succinct and mirrors SIP, but this MSC opts for the more descriptive name.
* This MSC elects to allow invites without an `invitee` field to mean a call for anyone in the room.
This could be useful for hunt group style semantics where an incoming call causes many different
users' phones to ring and any one of them may pick up the call. This does mean clients will need
to not blindly ring for any call invites in any room, since this would make unsolicited calls
easy in public rooms. We could opt to leave this out, or make it more explicit with a specific value
for the `invitee` field.
* `party_id` is one of many potential solutions: callees could add `answer_id`s to their events and
callers could be identified by the lack of an `answer_id`. An explicit field on every event may be
easier to comprehend, less error-prone and clearer in the backwards-compatibility scenario.
* We could make `party_id`s more prescriptive, eg. the caller could always have a `party_id` of the
empty string, the word `caller` or equal to the `call_id`, which may make debugging simpler.
* To allow for bridging into protocols that don't support trickle ICE, this proposal requires that
clients send an empty candidate to signal the end of candidates. This means it will be up to bridges
to buffer the invite and edit the SDP to add the candidates once they arrive, adding complexity to
bridges. The alternative would be a discovery mechanism so clients could know whether a callee supports
trickle ICE before calling, and disable it if so. This would add complexity to every Matrix client as
well as having to assume that all current clients did not, disabling trickle ICE everywhere until clients
support the discovery mechanism. The mechanism would also have to be per-user which would make sense for
bridged users, but not where some of a users devices support trickle ICE and some do not.
## Security considerations
* IP addresses remain in the room in candidates, as they did in the previous version of the spec.
This is not ideal, but alternatives were either sending candidates over to-device messages
(would slow down call setup because a target device would have to be established before sending
candidates) or redacting them afterwards (the volume of events sent during calls can already
cause rate limiting issues and this would exacerbate this).
* Clients must take care to not ring for any call, as per the 'alternatives' section.
## Unstable prefix
Since VoIP events already have a 'version' field, we would ideally use a string, namespaced version during
development, but this field is defined to be an int in version 0. This MSC proposes changing the version
field to a string so that this namespacing can be used for future changes. Since there is no other easy way
to namespace events whilst in development and ensure interoperability, we have chosen not to use an unstable
prefix for this change, on the understanding that in future we will be able to use the string `version` field
for the unstable prefix.
For backwards compatibility, strongly typed implementations should allow for
`version` to either be a string or the integer `0`.
Write Preview
Loading…
Cancel
Save