Re: [rtcweb] H.261 vs No MTI

[cowwoc <[e-mail]>]

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.

Gili