Re: [rtcweb] Use Case draft
Marshall Eubanks <marshall.eubanks@gmail.com> Tue, 01 May 2012 03:41 UTC
Return-Path: <marshall.eubanks@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 9B84121F87D0 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>;
Mon, 30 Apr 2012 20:41:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.628
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No,
score=-103.628 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.029, BAYES_00=-2.599,
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 NJqjbVskyIxh for
<rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 20:41:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lb0-f172.google.com (mail-lb0-f172.google.com
[209.85.217.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72DFE21F87CF for
<rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 20:41:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by lbbgm13 with SMTP id gm13so2544300lbb.31 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>;
Mon, 30 Apr 2012 20:41:37 -0700 (PDT)
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:content-transfer-encoding;
bh=D3QR85ehSVY7YS8nXnEQiGZrHiFQE1jbQpZOAccsyKU=;
b=CouTdoLiWDnWuzVuNdWztUXXwmigARRDGMkVAQEhnsOlqU9eSiZ3s46qn5TBi9nuNT
huhQDX8jecjEM87243QrKVBHEWWKWi8vxcif8YyZCxyU8AqVqVWWhOLPvn/w0u/wxMn5
uOT0H5UsTX0ZiW3MACU0YHakJbTfWG11uICHbRDXKecvgdhM7/zMZ7KVQOP1pwsMg4TR
Qly2IAvAkYhTftn5Kf7uC6EFQkukTw358DBVV91lcnfYlqLjQS5SbTlKPyFi07u3TS1D
H9R1Tsf9mSRb9QR9auH6WVxvv56uQVZVrHua8pIVZ3jVZ9tIRcBlQP4tEI/DEPK8fY1q 792g==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.112.104.99 with SMTP id gd3mr8990892lbb.70.1335843697386;
Mon, 30 Apr 2012 20:41:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.112.56.13 with HTTP; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 20:41:37 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <101C6067BEC68246B0C3F6843BCCC1E31299282765@MCHP058A.global-ad.net>
References: <CA+9kkMCYArLPRP3c00UdOja64WRT6ghN0PSy7XvM_wbxBBB+vA@mail.gmail.com>
<E17CAD772E76C742B645BD4DC602CD810616F066@NAHALD.us.int.genesyslab.com>
<BLU169-W7C59E1EDB4CB06B648577932B0@phx.gbl>
<387F9047F55E8C42850AD6B3A7A03C6C0E23AFFF@inba-mail01.sonusnet.com>
<2E496AC9-63A0-464A-A628-7407ED8DD9C4@phonefromhere.com>
<387F9047F55E8C42850AD6B3A7A03C6C0E23B16B@inba-mail01.sonusnet.com>
<E2714FBC-D06B-4A12-9E07-C49EBF55084C@phonefromhere.com>
<4F9EC0B2.10903@alcatel-lucent.com>
<101C6067BEC68246B0C3F6843BCCC1E31299282765@MCHP058A.global-ad.net>
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 23:41:37 -0400
Message-ID: <CAJNg7VKENERKAFA-n5KeoeBNmGgHrnzDOU0BzC9+fSdsuGwdEw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Marshall Eubanks <marshall.eubanks@gmail.com>
To: "Hutton, Andrew" <andrew.hutton@siemens-enterprise.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Use Case draft
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: Tue, 01 May 2012 03:41:39 -0000
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 2:31 PM, Hutton, Andrew <andrew.hutton@siemens-enterprise.com> wrote: > Whether anybody has been successful in the past with this type of use case > is I think irrelevant. > > > > The enterprise call centre use case is I think a vital use case because it > is a scenario in which one user is only concerned that they can securely > reach an organization/domain and is not concerned about the individual > within that domain that they communicate with. A suspect quite a large > percentage of RTCWEB applications will be like this and it is not covered in > the current use case draft. I agree that this is a very useful use case and one I think is going to get a lot of traction. There is a very solid business case for this. However, I have a fair amount of experience with a video call center for a client, and it is not as simple as it might seem. The essence of course is that you get the next available person, i.e., it is anycast. Determining who the next available person is is not trivial, nor is error recovery. (If I call you, and you don't answer or the call drops or whatever, I can leave a message or try later. If I call a help desk, and this happens, I want a new agent, ideally automatically.) Call forwarding (e.g., first tier to second tier technical support) is essential, and it may be anycast or directed. There are also some security oddities - if I am connecting from home, I may need to authenticate, use a credit card, etc. If I am connecting from inside a store, and providing in store video technical support is big part of the market, then the store authenticates me off line and the call really should just be a button push, which implies that the store has previously authenticated some sort of master session. In addition, unlike most video calls, in the enterprise call center a supervisor may need to be able to monitor (i.e., watch) a call, and in some circumstances (financial or medical calls, for example) there will need to be third party recording. I believe that these details would be different from the typical RTCWEB scenario. Also, there will be a temptation to do the anycasting by the techniques used to load balance servers in a data center, but I think that may not be sufficient. The call "center" may in fact be spread completely across the planet (daytime support in the US, nighttime support in India, for example) and be on multiple autonomous systems (and even from people's homes), which gives rise to some of the transport issues NVO3 may face, but without any opportunity for packet tagging. Plus, there will complicated rules about who can be selected next. RTCWEB shouldn't worry about the intricacies of bathroom break policies; these complexities should be dealt with by an enterprise-side database, which to me (together with some of the other issues above) suggests that this would probably benefit from API support. Regards Marshall > > > > So I think we need it. > > > > Regards > > Andy > > > > > > > > > > From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Igor Faynberg > Sent: 30 April 2012 17:41 > To: rtcweb@ietf.org > > > Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Use Case draft > > > > Without numbers it is impossible to argue, but, if we talk about the > perceived need, I disagree. Think of the people who travel abroad and > cannot call the 800 number. (I routinely use Web interface for calls when > traveling.) > > > > I am all for the use case, as described by Jim. > > Igor > > On 4/30/2012 9:54 AM, Tim Panton wrote: > > ... > > I can't tell you the actual numbers, but when presented with the choice of > calling a toll free number > > or clicking a button marked "free internet call" - almost no-one on a real, > busy site clicked the button. > > ( for every button click there were several orders of magnitude more 0800 > calls from that page). > > > > > > So from my perspective this is a legacy interop use case with almost zero > user acceptance. > > > > (as far as I can see no-one has made this use-case desirable in practice > yet.) > > Tim. > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > rtcweb mailing list > > rtcweb@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb > > > _______________________________________________ > rtcweb mailing list > rtcweb@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb >
- [rtcweb] Use Case draft Ted Hardie
- Re: [rtcweb] Use Case draft Jim Barnett
- Re: [rtcweb] Use Case draft Timothy B. Terriberry
- Re: [rtcweb] Use Case draft Bernard Aboba
- Re: [rtcweb] Use Case draft Ravindran, Parthasarathi
- Re: [rtcweb] Use Case draft Tim Panton
- Re: [rtcweb] Use Case draft Ravindran, Parthasarathi
- Re: [rtcweb] Use Case draft (privacy) Fabio Pietrosanti (naif)
- Re: [rtcweb] Use Case draft (privacy) Ravindran, Parthasarathi
- Re: [rtcweb] Use Case draft (privacy) Hutton, Andrew
- Re: [rtcweb] Use Case draft Stefan Hakansson LK
- Re: [rtcweb] Use Case draft Jim Barnett
- Re: [rtcweb] Use Case draft Tim Panton
- Re: [rtcweb] Use Case draft Igor Faynberg
- Re: [rtcweb] Use Case draft Hutton, Andrew
- Re: [rtcweb] Use Case draft Randell Jesup
- Re: [rtcweb] Use Case draft Randell Jesup
- Re: [rtcweb] Use Case draft Stephan Wenger
- Re: [rtcweb] Use Case draft Randell Jesup
- Re: [rtcweb] Use Case draft Marshall Eubanks
- Re: [rtcweb] Use Case draft Stefan Hakansson LK
- Re: [rtcweb] Use Case draft Tim Panton
- Re: [rtcweb] Use Case draft Jim Barnett
- Re: [rtcweb] Use Case draft Jim Barnett
- Re: [rtcweb] Use Case draft Marshall Eubanks
- Re: [rtcweb] Use Case draft - Eavesdropping. Hutton, Andrew
- Re: [rtcweb] Use Case draft - Eavesdropping. Fabio Pietrosanti (naif)
- Re: [rtcweb] Use Case draft - Eavesdropping. Eric Rescorla
- Re: [rtcweb] Use Case draft - Eavesdropping. Cavigioli, Chris
- Re: [rtcweb] Use Case draft - Eavesdropping. Marshall Eubanks
- Re: [rtcweb] Use Case draft Randell Jesup
- Re: [rtcweb] Use Case draft - Eavesdropping. Randell Jesup
- Re: [rtcweb] Use Case draft - Eavesdropping. Stefan Hakansson LK
- Re: [rtcweb] Use Case draft Stefan Hakansson LK
- Re: [rtcweb] Use Case draft Ravindran, Parthasarathi
- Re: [rtcweb] Use Case draft - Eavesdropping. Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] Use Case draft Stefan Hakansson LK
- Re: [rtcweb] Use Case draft Jim Barnett
- Re: [rtcweb] Use Case draft Stefan Hakansson LK
- Re: [rtcweb] Use Case draft Igor Faynberg
- [rtcweb] interworking with non-WEBRTC endpoints [… Dan Wing
- Re: [rtcweb] interworking with non-WEBRTC endpoin… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] interworking with non-WEBRTC endpoin… Marshall Eubanks
- Re: [rtcweb] interworking with non-WEBRTC endpoin… Lorenzo Miniero
- Re: [rtcweb] interworking with non-WEBRTC endpoin… Mary Barnes
- Re: [rtcweb] interworking with non-WEBRTC endpoin… Marshall Eubanks
- Re: [rtcweb] interworking with non-WEBRTC endpoin… Fabio Pietrosanti (naif)
- Re: [rtcweb] interworking with non-WEBRTC endpoin… Dan Wing
- Re: [rtcweb] Use Case draft Ravindran, Parthasarathi
- Re: [rtcweb] interworking with non-WEBRTC endpoin… Ravindran, Parthasarathi
- Re: [rtcweb] interworking with non-WEBRTC endpoin… Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] Use Case draft Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] interworking with non-WEBRTC endpoin… Fabio Pietrosanti (naif)
- Re: [rtcweb] Use Case draft Ravindran, Parthasarathi
- Re: [rtcweb] Use Case draft Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] interworking with non-WEBRTC endpoin… Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal (mperumal)
- Re: [rtcweb] Use Case draft Jim Barnett
- Re: [rtcweb] Use Case draft Stefan Hakansson LK
- Re: [rtcweb] interworking with non-WEBRTC endpoin… Bernard Aboba
- Re: [rtcweb] Use Case draft Jim Barnett
- Re: [rtcweb] Use Case draft - legacy interop Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] interworking with non-WEBRTC endpoin… Neil Stratford
- Re: [rtcweb] interworking with non-WEBRTC endpoin… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] interworking with non-WEBRTC endpoin… Christer Holmberg
- Re: [rtcweb] interworking with non-WEBRTC endpoin… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] interworking with non-WEBRTC endpoin… Richard Shockey
- Re: [rtcweb] interworking with non-WEBRTC endpoin… Xavier Marjou
- Re: [rtcweb] Use Case draft - legacy interop Bernard Aboba
- Re: [rtcweb] Use Case draft - legacy interop Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] Use Case draft - legacy interop Dan Wing
- Re: [rtcweb] Use Case draft - legacy interop Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] Use Case draft - legacy interop Bernard Aboba
- Re: [rtcweb] Use Case draft - legacy interop Dan Wing
- Re: [rtcweb] Use Case draft - legacy interop Harald Alvestrand
- [rtcweb] Consent freshness and message-integrity … Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] Consent freshness and message-integr… Dan Wing
- Re: [rtcweb] Consent freshness and message-integr… Harald Alvestrand