Re: [rtcweb] Use Case draft

"Ravindran, Parthasarathi" <> Mon, 30 April 2012 08:42 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE18A21F8548 for <>; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 01:42:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.506
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.506 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.092, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SeRY2R2pW7rW for <>; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 01:42:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFFF321F8534 for <>; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 01:42:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) (using TLSv1) by ([]) with SMTP ID DSNKT55Qdl79EuSOJ/; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 01:42:31 PDT
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 04:42:35 -0400
Received: from ([fe80::8d0f:e4f9:a74f:3daf]) by ([fe80::80b9:dc60:caf7:7dfc%11]) with mapi id 14.01.0355.002; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 14:12:26 +0530
From: "Ravindran, Parthasarathi" <>
To: Tim Panton <>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Use Case draft
Thread-Index: AQHNJJD6fraw229Zx0W4DjUXXLWGX5augkyAgAMxP4CAAR3d8P//0qUAgABiT3A=
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 08:42:25 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>, <> <BLU169-W7C59E1EDB4CB06B648577932B0@phx.gbl> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_387F9047F55E8C42850AD6B3A7A03C6C0E23B16Binbamail01sonus_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Use Case draft
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: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 08:42:34 -0000


My experience is different. Click-to-call is attractive in case of toll-free number in the site. WebRTC provides complete free call without any toll.

The registered users should not mandated as it is not generically applicable for all sites. In case of  camera selling site wherein the anonymous customer wish to get the details about the product wherein the sites will not mandate for registration before calling the shop as today, these sites provide their phone number for the customer to contact without any identity.  I really don't know why some identity MUST be mandated  for calling those WebRTC sites. The customer support folks will get the relevant information during the course of the call :)

Having<> as a identity is not going to much helpful in these sites whereas captcha will confirm the caller as a human.


From: Tim Panton []
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2012 1:12 PM
To: Ravindran, Parthasarathi
Cc: Bernard Aboba;;
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Use Case draft

My experience of this (with<>) is that there is very limited demand for
pure click-to-call in the browser. Users don't see any benefit.

The benefit comes if the call in tied into the rest of the web session, so full anonymity
isn't desirable in this case.
The best results come when the call center is also using similar in-browser technology
and the session can be properly shared.

So while this use-case has some merit, it shouldn't be seen as critical.


On 30 Apr 2012, at 05:59, Ravindran, Parthasarathi wrote:


The consumer call center shall support "anonymous" calling wherein there is no need of specific identity mechanism for the caller.

From:<> [] On Behalf Of Bernard Aboba
Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2012 10:51 PM
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Use Case draft

I agree that the corporate call center use case is important.
> Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 09:35:55 -0700
> From:<>
> To:<>;<>
> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Use Case draft
> I would like to see a corporate call center use case. Specifically, a
> user downloads a web page from a corporate web site, clicks a 'call us'
> button and is connected to a gateway server that is controlled by the
> corporation. The communication up to the corporate boundary cannot be
> eavesdropped, but, inside the corporate boundary: 1) the corporation
> can route the call to whoever it wants (meaning that the caller can
> verify that he is connected to the corporation, but is not necessarily
> assured of the identity of the person he is speaking to within the
> corporation) 2) the corporation can eavesdrop/record the call (n.b. this
> is mandatory in financial institutions, and common in most others).
> This corresponds to a very common current PSTN use case (except that
> with webRTC the call is more secure up to the corporate boundary). I
> think that corporations will be eager to add webRTC support to their
> call centers - as long as it doesn't mess up their existing operations
> (call routing, recording, etc.) They will most likely want to put in a
> gateway, and treat it as the webRTC endpoint. Inside the gateway the
> call should look just like one that came in from the PSTN (via a SIP
> trunk or PSTN/SIP gateway.)
> I think others have suggested use cases involving outbound calls from
> corporations, but I think that those should probably be treated
> separately.
> - Jim
> -----Original Message-----
> From:<> [] On Behalf
> Of Ted Hardie
> Sent: Friday, April 27, 2012 12:15 PM
> To:<>
> Subject: [rtcweb] Use Case draft
> The chairs would like to ask the working group to focus on the use case
> draft. If you have use cases that need to be added to the document or
> text changes you'd like to suggest, please send them in for discussion
> before May 15th. After this round, we will look toward having a working
> group last call on the document (hopefully before the interim meeting).
> regards,
> Ted, Magnus, Cullen
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
rtcweb mailing list<>