Re: [rtcweb] H.261 vs No MTI

cowwoc <> Fri, 08 November 2013 18:53 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83D6711E80E9 for <>; Fri, 8 Nov 2013 10:53:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.258
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.258 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.659, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id od4062iIGqmF for <>; Fri, 8 Nov 2013 10:53:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4AA721F9FDA for <>; Fri, 8 Nov 2013 10:53:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id u16so636400iet.34 for <>; Fri, 08 Nov 2013 10:53:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=7QwQrZ6DBRcsFPJs1eix6OAWhXRWNzjlcxZiWx3wPSE=; b=CgU/g+G+3IFeDU4W2HM0X/WLRUjtv6BEwBjA7OmjUivETZ65jxzMIkZhmapTZ0jw0N YmmwelSDCcsnDDANM0kcjt4enyqMu+pntyHgh7mpJyNfAYlDgOrkqAzN/XMWZ5xK1ebU wZCXpCms2o8M/hhyk4xa1vvbb3gjcT6kSwbYu4TK5q11attZ7VNraK3HvEgCcolqOUBy QkdYPBDQDolIlWQZYCpDr1QgxWNqA5fblS6zbKFgd3w+kKZkv4NPMyxJ7YQjhT7+mHVC 1wY3w51dku2hg+wfL95hwRCVFjSBDPoIL5o/HI7P8GzSa9fQMBu2Ecdnr+eYDtYeGv6u 4fBA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlYwr/oBxmhv43KKMFW+48zgtkjnYRw641iuWIkLokn4dEG3ic6t9ycY8rlOqSNZaBh0MKI
X-Received: by with SMTP id iq8mr10102972icc.37.1383936814917; Fri, 08 Nov 2013 10:53:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id ka5sm4435413igb.2.2013. for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 08 Nov 2013 10:53:34 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2013 13:53:31 -0500
From: cowwoc <>
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" <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc:, Tim Panton <>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] H.261 vs No MTI
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2013 18:53:46 -0000

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.

Also, offering users "advice" about choosing a browser is also a 
non-starter. If 3 people join a call with IE, Firefox, and Chrome 
respectively who is on the "right" browser? One is not necessarily 
better than the other, other than we need them to agree on a codec. Some 
people may not have the necessary permission to switch browsers (work). 
Others are very touchy about their browsers. Asking them to switch isn't 
going to go down well.