[dcc2] DCC Chat suggestions

[Dan Smith]

Hey Dominick,

I think your suggestion of a command channel could be very useful.  Another 
item I would suggest adding is DCC2 negotiation.  With DCC2 negotiations 
for new connections taking place over an established chat session, a user 
could spawn a whiteboard, file transfer, or video/voice session.

Cheers!
Dan

At 06:08 PM 5/21/2004 -0400, you wrote:
>Well, no one seems to have any real thoughts on any additional features for
>DCC2's DCC Chat feature, so I thought I might make some suggestions myself.
>I think the new DCC Chat should encompass everything the current DCC Chat
>has, but add some more useful features as well.
>
>
>Current non-standard features:
>CTCP ACTION is maintained and handled as it would be for regular IRC text
>A client should format a DCC Chat message just as one from IRC (font codes,
>color codes, etc.)
>
>New stuff:
>CTCP is the means of control within a DCC Chat session.
>
>CTCP NICK
>Currently, there is no way to change the nickname you appear as in a DCC
>Chat. Most clients I've seen just display the nick that was given in the
>CTCP response. If I, as codemastr, send a DCC chat request, no matter what I
>change my nickname to, I still appear as codemastr in the DCC session. The
>CTCP
>NICK feature changes this:
>
>\1NICK newnick\1
>
>I think it is rather useful. First off it makes things uniform. If I change
>to "codemastr-away," why shouldn't I appear that way to people in DCC Chat
>too? Also, think of it differently, DCC is independant of the IRC server.
>So, for example, when DCC Server support is addressed, it could be rather
>useful to allow users to change their nicknames. To do this, a legal set of
>characters would need to be defined. Probably those from RFC1459 or RFC2812,
>though, if we wanted to look the the future, we could again realize that DCC
>is seperate from IRC and use a Unicode scheme. I'm sure that would please
>people in non Latin-charset areas. The only other problem I see is the issue
>of trying to change your nickname to the nick of the other party. To address
>these, a new CTCP ERROR would be introduced.
>
>CTCP KEEPALIVE
>This is something similar to a PING (command, not CTCP) on IRC. It's just
>something I was thinking of as a means to try and make sure the connection,
>hasn't been, and won't be, dropped. Basically, when I send a CTCP KEEPALIVE,
>you respond back with a CTCP KEEPALIVE.
>
>CTCP ERROR
>As I said, this would be used with CTCP NICK, but it can also be used for
>other things. The syntax is:
>\1ERROR type text\1
>
>The type can be one of the following:
>NICKINUSE (the nickname specified in the NICK CTCP is already in use. Not
>only is this needed for the other party saying "that's my nickname!" it also
>works for partyline scripts so that the "server" can tell the client that
>the nick specified is already in use by another partyline member)
>
>NICKILLEGAL (the nickname specified in the NICK CTCP contains illegal
>characters)
>
>x-* (The x- prefix is used for private error types. This can be used for
>individual implementations that wish to add extended features and may need
>to report errors for those features).
>
>Lastly, the client SHOULD treat all CTCPs (FINGER, VERSION, PING, TIME,
>etc.) sent through DCC as it would for a regular IRC connection. This is for
>2 reasons. One, clients support DCC Server (which as I said, I'd like to see
>standardized as well). This means, I can start a DCC chat with someone
>without ever being connected to an IRC server! Doesn't it make sense to
>allow such users to get this information? Also, even if you forget about DCC
>Server, I can initiate a DCC Chat over IRC, then disconnect from IRC and the
>DCC remains open. It'd be nice to still be able to get this information.
>
>I'm sure some people will disagree with the ideas, but I'm throwing them out
>there anyway :)
>
>P.S. Are there any plans to begin discussion of the other proposed DCC
>extensions (voice/video/whiteboard)? For filesends and chat, it's pretty
>easy. We have "standardized" existing implementations to work from.
>Voice/video/whiteboard are going to need much more fundamental thought work
>done (several implementations exist, and it's possible none are truly
>perfect), and so, imho they should probably be something people begin to
>think about sooner rather than later...
>
>-- codemastr
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>dcc2 mailing list
>dcc2 at dcc2.org
>http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/dcc2

---------------------------
Dan Smith
+1 608-213-2867
Algenta Technologies, LLC