IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] H.261 vs No MTI

cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org> Fri, 08 November 2013 22:21 UTC

Return-Path: <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0DD021E8099 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Nov 2013 14:21:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.245
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.245 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.647, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uxXimSoVPqQP for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Nov 2013 14:21:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ie0-f169.google.com (mail-ie0-f169.google.com [209.85.223.169]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B068F21E8092 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Nov 2013 14:21:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ie0-f169.google.com with SMTP id ar20so4277051iec.14 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 08 Nov 2013 14:21:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type; bh=u4oIInnxucSxncBT9OMwgblBxoYxZNU8kWIXhWm6lH4=; b=PB0fl3b6fsI81fDXzVQUef0hkhmT4fZxrYeOkioUQOA86zhi7oMp/7gWyP8G2EIYkm AqSp+/sLs1lcIE4fWyR6/sS5rbUryHsfzohTJ8pfcSF/buRUUqZTATArVuyhlyytfCqU stXRYGICojQzieW+XVBeeFfmbvn2ukrrF4Pb8UOYQQHt47+UGdgf2oOuuMVTUpJpmPIn q2DpAAxj1FTRNxLN/xO2C01rlpk5z2wMI7kaa9XDSFrIq/N5LC8qC2e7UWaupVnFAsbs r3/6FUetWU8mUUli3ZTEkL4ghDNAOh3RzlYWFGI9Mh3eg0wy3O6UBcTMq17t+MFRB16A 6ASA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQltzt2Jtz3vC0wndb8ELs8CRn6rvd8X6Ldbo8Pn40XL8ffIedWHZUh6Jwk6bc4C9DlY6iUl
X-Received: by 10.50.29.4 with SMTP id f4mr4173688igh.11.1383949310837; Fri, 08 Nov 2013 14:21:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.100] (206-248-171-209.dsl.teksavvy.com. [206.248.171.209]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id ft2sm5308778igb.5.2013.11.08.14.21.49 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 08 Nov 2013 14:21:50 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <527D63FB.7070203@bbs.darktech.org>
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2013 17:21:47 -0500
From: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "cb.list6" <cb.list6@gmail.com>
References: <CAAS2fgQ730sjjv5Ly0_TFmdz=ryhPN13+A69_0_MedotHGEthg@mail.gmail.com> <527C38FF.6040000@nostrum.com> <CAAS2fgSGdmFaxZ4jtYjyG9tDqKv09-L8FXSybeHrgvzNtdqYpQ@mail.gmail.com> <527C7CFE.4080700@bbs.darktech.org> <1E0D9A14-E629-4CB2-AC67-5860B24DB7D7@westhawk.co.uk> <527D09CA.1060703@bbs.darktech.org> <CAD6AjGQGTLTTLJW3TtP2QGC_-Y2C-ENWiWE-FVPDyW-f1vBCpA@mail.gmail.com> <527D332B.8090506@bbs.darktech.org> <CAD6AjGTrSqaREk=2MJL8vX0vnNv7CJquL_Ub8_a5ABDfU8sZpw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAD6AjGTrSqaREk=2MJL8vX0vnNv7CJquL_Ub8_a5ABDfU8sZpw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------080301080508040207070204"
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org, Tim Panton <thp@westhawk.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] H.261 vs No MTI
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb>
List-Post: <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2013 22:21:57 -0000

On 08/11/2013 3:25 PM, cb.list6 wrote:
>
> On Nov 8, 2013 10:53 AM, "cowwoc" <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org 
> <mailto:cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>> wrote:
> >
> > On 08/11/2013 12:25 PM, cb.list6 wrote:
> >>
> >> I disagree that "no MTI = transcode"
> >>
> >> There is no scenario I would permit transcoding as normal mode of 
> operations.  If sdp cannot find a common codec, fall back to 
> voice-only. And, at the implementation discretion, offer the user 
> advice about choosing a browser.
> >>
> >> CB
> >>
> >
> > :) That doesn't work. Dropping video is equivalent to dropping a 
> call. How would you like it if the roles were reversed and we couldn't 
> agree on an MTI audio? Would it be acceptable to "simply drop the 
> audio" and let the participants mime their way through the call? The 
> entire reason I'm starting a WebRTC video call is because I want 
> video. Otherwise, I'd pick up the phone.
> >
>
> It works today.  Sometimes skype and hangouts offer video, sometimes 
> only audio.
>

     The only time I was only offered audio was when the user had no 
webcam :) In any case, I'm happy to agree with you on the following:

No Video MTI = No video or transcoding must be used

     If the community believes this is preferable to the alternatives, 
so be it.

Gili

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email