Re: [rtcweb] Use Case draft

Harald Alvestrand <> Thu, 03 May 2012 08:25 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D896C21F8551 for <>; Thu, 3 May 2012 01:25:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.499
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.100, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id f0O6rlAxZlF1 for <>; Thu, 3 May 2012 01:25:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4FBC21F8528 for <>; Thu, 3 May 2012 01:25:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 385AC39E113; Thu, 3 May 2012 10:25:36 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OLs5p7TuU3aH; Thu, 3 May 2012 10:25:35 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [] ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E7CFE39E072; Thu, 3 May 2012 10:25:34 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 03 May 2012 10:25:34 +0200
From: Harald Alvestrand <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120411 Thunderbird/11.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Ravindran, Parthasarathi" <>
References: <><><BLU169-W7C59E1EDB4CB06B648577932B0@phx.gbl><><><><><><> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> < >
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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: Thu, 03 May 2012 08:25:38 -0000

On 05/03/2012 09:39 AM, Ravindran, Parthasarathi wrote:
> Harald,
> It is one of the main reason, the reliability&  QOS of the established session is very important in the telecom/Enterprise world and the call disconnect for the established session due to technical reason will taken as an escalation :-(
I was thinking of scenarios like "the phone slipped out of my hand" and 
"I tripped over the PC power cord", actually.... there are plenty of 
reasons why calls get disconnected.
> There are lot of reasons, the majority of the call centre may not prefer to provide the agent-id to the customer as it is not manageable solution. Dynamically deciding the available agent helps for better agent time utilization in the call center compare to direct dialing to the agent. The agent may work in shift (in the different timezone) wherein you will not be able to reach him in the same identity itself. In these type of call center, the case id or your existing some id is the way to continue your earlier conversation if it is recorded in some form.
My point was not to dispute any of those for the cases you describe. But 
those cases are not the only cases; I've re-called into call centers 
where I've said "I was talking to John", and the responder says "OK, I 
see he's free, I'll transfer you".

The desire for "anonymous agents" is not synonymous with "doesn't 
support re-dial" - that was really my only point.
> As an individual user, I don't want to register as a user of each website before calling their site to know about their product information.
> As you wish, The premium user of the call center will be given the agent identity to contact. For example, you will be provided with Bank agent identity for your banking account related queries. Please note that you MUST be premium user of the bank to get that privilege or have to live with case-id or start from IVR&  reach some new agent to start with.
It seems we agree that some people will want to build applications where 
this functionality is available. That was really all I was trying to 
say, so I'm happy now.
> Thanks
> Partha
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [] On Behalf
>> Of Harald Alvestrand
>> Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2012 11:41 AM
>> To:
>> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Use Case draft
>> On 05/03/2012 07:05 AM, Ravindran, Parthasarathi wrote:
>>> Igor,
>>> When you call Company X, you need to assure that you are talking with
>> Company X agent and not required to distinguish the agent.
>>> The identity could be just X (no userpart) or anonymous. There is no
>> difference between anonymous and agent007@X as there is no means to
>> route directly agent007@x in the call centre scenario.
>> It' s easy to construct scenarios where having the ability to set up a
>> connection directly to agent007@x is desirable - consider the case of
>> anonymous counselling, where a call gets dropped in the middle of the
>> conversation; while the caller wishes to know that the callee is really
>> a representative of "X anonymous", and both parties wish to remain
>> anonymous as persons, when the call gets dropped in the middle of the
>> conversation, the calling party has a strong incentive to continue the
>> conversation with the same party, if possible.
>> In this case, having a callee identity with a lifetime of "one
>> conversation" seems highly desirable; any distributed ID system (such as
>> 1st party BrowserID) should be able to easily support that.
>>             Harald
>> _______________________________________________
>> rtcweb mailing list