Re: [rtcweb] Use Case draft

"Jim Barnett" <> Mon, 30 April 2012 13:08 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 216DE21F863E for <>; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 06:08:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.548
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.548 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.050, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id S6XGTj22KKmT for <>; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 06:07:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA1A921F8637 for <>; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 06:07:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q3UD7vPk012373; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 06:07:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) by with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 30 Apr 2012 06:07:57 -0700
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01CD26D2.42D17C29"
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 06:07:48 -0700
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Use Case draft
Thread-Index: Ac0mpLMJ+BknP640TBqW8I42bA8ATgALNoAA
References: <>, <> <BLU169-W7C59E1EDB4CB06B648577932B0@phx.gbl> <> <>
From: Jim Barnett <>
To: Tim Panton <>, "Ravindran, Parthasarathi" <>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Apr 2012 13:07:57.0182 (UTC) FILETIME=[42F2F9E0:01CD26D2]
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 13:08:01 -0000

I think that there are two different issues here.  


1)      In many cases the call center would like to have information
about the caller's web session:  what page he is on, browsing history
information, etc.  This can be passed in the data channel.

2)      However, this does not require that the caller be authenticated
(i.e. identified as a specific individual).  The call center wants  to
know that the caller has been looking at, e.g., warranty info for
cameras on their site, but doesn't  particularly need to know the
caller's name (they can get that during the call if they need it.)   


-          Jim


From: Tim Panton [] 
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2012 3:42 AM
To: Ravindran, Parthasarathi
Cc: Bernard Aboba; Jim Barnett;
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
> 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.
> 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
> 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
> 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
> group last call on the document (hopefully before the interim
> regards,
> Ted, Magnus, Cullen
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list

rtcweb mailing list