IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] H.261 vs No MTI

"cb.list6" <cb.list6@gmail.com> Fri, 08 November 2013 20:25 UTC

Return-Path: <cb.list6@gmail.com>
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 0D2A911E8211 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Nov 2013 12:25:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.463
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.463 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.136, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
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 f-w1tgjq1JLD for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Nov 2013 12:25:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wg0-x230.google.com (mail-wg0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::230]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C872411E810E for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Nov 2013 12:25:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wg0-f48.google.com with SMTP id b13so2466741wgh.27 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 08 Nov 2013 12:25:13 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=gaFRxYiwat1+bN0WP0CRDM+uez/Bon2l7zulSl0baqc=; b=ojeccqBLHEDANSU8R8FWDKhUfgfM3mKtc1QGCtPec+U0CRMnwUhjc4Mt17t/lHa84Q 7v//SUAFXfftjnRDJicqGgrExRzw5+wyzwTfjyINFMA8c7lznIn/szUB6ZOhADGSohjF 70HUShyqIuUeH16N03Q1sgt2wab+/RTj2FPnha77IFy0iGTfVbSzGD75B81FEcAYGrrp TcXs0jYXfo8qi+L20JXJwO9SZlXm4LLVQfRCoJIn4p3JyKjb95P5gaV5k7r2NgEhUVzZ KvBiiXyMgziF5ZuqNSDSygILs691j+ot+cLbDcxj+2m/BN6GYN2kE77uWk+1/SEkmag8 i3sA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.77.19 with SMTP id o19mr3852725wiw.34.1383942313905; Fri, 08 Nov 2013 12:25:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.216.99.68 with HTTP; Fri, 8 Nov 2013 12:25:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.216.99.68 with HTTP; Fri, 8 Nov 2013 12:25:13 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <527D332B.8090506@bbs.darktech.org>
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>
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2013 12:25:13 -0800
Message-ID: <CAD6AjGTrSqaREk=2MJL8vX0vnNv7CJquL_Ub8_a5ABDfU8sZpw@mail.gmail.com>
From: "cb.list6" <cb.list6@gmail.com>
To: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f46d043c7f5402974a04eab02e24"
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 20:25:16 -0000

On Nov 8, 2013 10:53 AM, "cowwoc" <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.

CB
> 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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email