Talk:TOC2 protocol

Gangster --70.152.35.146 00:21, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

No mention of servers/ports?
I thought it might be a good idea to mention that AOL's OSCAR server info is:

toc.oscar.aol.com:9898 login.oscar.aol.com:5190

I suppose so, add it if you like. syphonbyte (t 03:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

TOC2 support for file transfers and buddy icons.
I believe that TOC 2.0 supports both file transfers and buddy icons. Even TOC 1.0 supported file transfers. 65.5.147.186 17:19, 15 November 2005 (UTC) -Jon

And your proof is? TOC 2.0 supports receiving files via "RVOUS_PROPOSE" sent by AOL after another client request to send a file; which, is the same as TOC1. However, I do not know of any commands for TOC2 to initiate sending files(Logically, the command would be toc2_rvous_propose). There are also a number of things not mentioned in the article. There are actually two methods of signing onto TOC2. One method is via the "toc2_signon" command and the other via "toc2_login". The first method causes the "IM_IN2" command to be sent when a another user sends a message to the client and the second causes the "IM_IN_ENC2" command to be sent instead. The most noticable different is the fact that with the "toc2_signon" command one cannot chat with @mac.com or ICQ buddies; however, with the latter- one can. Lastly, with the latter method- typing notification commands are also avaliable. I do not know if that is the case or not using the toc2_signon method.

It seems to me that "toc2_login" is actually an newer version of TOC2 with more features.

One note: TOC2 has an unknown command called "BART2";

-Aaron Myles Landwehr(Miranda-IM TOC2 plugin Developer)

TOC2 handles buddy icons via the BART2 message.

And is there any implemation of this? Or any proof? I heard a rumor that this was the case; however, I have never seen any proof. One thing I can think of is that BART2 stands for Buddy Avatar 2- e.g. B for Buddy ART for Avatar and 2 for 2. -Snaphat

There is absolutely no evidence that TOC2 supports buddy icons or file transfers. TOC1 certainly did not support them. syphonbyte 17:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC) --- --- I am 100% certain that TOC2 supports file transfers and Direct connecting, though it is a differently named protocol (ODC2 is for direct connect, and I think its is OFT2 for file transfers), which are initiated through recieveing an RVOUS_PROPOSE command, however, there is no evidence of being able to initiate either of these. I have also never seen any evidence of buddy icons... and I have never seen the BART2 command come across the server ever (though if that only comes across with toc2_login, then that would explain it). In response to Aaron Myles, typing notification is not available using toc2_signon (though I was not aware of the toc2_login command). But I have seen support for file transfers and direct connect (and have implemented direct connect previously)

129.110.199.88 23:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC) - Jeremy(phpTOCLib developer)

In that case, I'm removing the factual accuracy notice from the top of the article and making it accurate since we've determined that file transfers and direct connect are supported. As of this time, I know that the BART2 command has come across the server before, so that can be considered support of buddy icons. 18.246.2.33 01:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

If there isn't evidence to support 'initiating' file transfers & direct connections then shouldn't the article correctly state that? I believe the BART2 command only comes across with toc2_login. In fact, a number of things only work using that- one of which is the ability to chat with icq & ichat buddies. I don't think just the existence of the BART2 command constitutes buddy icon support- has any client supported or has anyone discovered how to use the BART2 command to get buddy icons? Just because, it exist and looks to stand for 'buddy avatar' doesn't mean that it is or that it is even a fully implemented command. Anyone have anymore information on this topic? -Aaron Landwehr

Raven (writer of Raven::AIM, implementation is linked in article) has seen the BART2 command come across his client along with a mass of data that probably represents a buddy icon. His client runs in the console, so he can't actually display the icon, so as far as I know it just ignores the data in his client. I don't know if any other clients use the data in some way, though. syphonbyte 20:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, so someone should probably look into the command some more. I'll Try myself via miranda-im's toc2 plugin.And I'll report what I find here.--Aaron Myles Landwehr 14:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Merge?
Does anybody actually think it's neccessary to merge this and TOC? The merge suggestion's been up there for a while... I personally think they should stay seperate, since they're different chapters in the TOC protocol, sort of like Windows 95 and 98. syphonbyte 03:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think they should be. Aaron Myles Landwehr 10:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge
The two TOC articles, TOC protocol and TOC2 protocol, should be merged into OSCAR protocol. Mostly because they are really sloppy and all over the place. Having them in one article would allow editors to clean it all up, and clearly specify their correlation to each other. Right now, all three are highly unencyclopedic, and not very helpful to someone who is researching these protocols. In response to syphonbyte's comment: while the two protocols are separate versions, they are not nearly important enough to have their own articles, like Windows is.

--HockeyInJune (talk) 04:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Soon two years and not merged yet ? (TOC protocol and TOC2 protocol) — Neustradamus ( ✉  ) 19:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

No-one has really updated the articles in years. There's not much interest in either of the protocols since OSCAR is more feature-rich and actually what official clients use. So I doubt there is anyone who is going to put out the effort to merge these. Aaron Myles Landwehr (talk) 05:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)