Re: [cisco-voip] [External] IPCC best practice

2020-08-19 Thread Anthony Holloway 
Low blow Erick, low blow.

On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 7:37 PM Erick Bergquist  wrote:

> Didn’t the original name have Platform at the end , making P last
> character after CRA?
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 1:10 PM f...@browardcommunications.com <
> f...@browardcommunications.com> wrote:
>
>> Not blowing it up at all, I’ve enjoyed the back n forth!!
>>
>> I was going to try n be cool for a second and throw ICM out there.
>>
>> /FW
>>
>>
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Aug 19, 2020, at 2:42 PM, Anthony Holloway <
>> avholloway+cisco-v...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> We might have to stop blowing up Fred's email with our inside jokes and
>> musing of technology past.  Sorry Fred!  I hope you got the
>> answers/feedback you were looking for.
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 1:39 PM Bill Talley  wrote:
>>
>>> +1000
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>> Sent from an iPhone mobile device with very tiny touchscreen input
>>> keys.  Please excude my typtos.
>>>
>>> On Aug 19, 2020, at 12:51 PM, Anthony Holloway <
>>> avholloway+cisco-v...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> 
>>> GTFO
>>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 10:25 AM NateCCIE  wrote:
>>>
 What about IP IVR?

 Sent from my iPhone

 On Aug 19, 2020, at 9:16 AM, Lelio Fulgenzi  wrote:

 















 +100 for Anthony!

 😊













 *From:* Anthony Holloway 




 *Sent:* Wednesday, August 19, 2020 10:48 AM


 *To:* Lelio Fulgenzi 


 *Cc:* Matthew Loraditch ; Charles
 Goldsmith ; cisco-voip@puck.nether.net


 *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] [External] IPCC best practice









 *CAUTION:* This email originated from outside of the University of
 Guelph. Do not click links

 or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
 content is safe. If in doubt, forward suspicious emails to

 ith...@uoguelph.ca











 Wait Lelio, CRA is older terminology than CRS, so it should go:











 +1 IPCC






 +2 CRS






 +3 CRA













 Right?















 On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 8:53 AM Lelio Fulgenzi 
 wrote:















 Not much more to add here, except +1 for calling in IPCC. :) you’d have
 gotten +2 if you called it CRA. ;)












 But, seriously, you have to weigh the pros and cons of injecting a
 point of failure vs ease of administration.













 My thought process is, can you build automatic recovery? Or easily
 understood manual backup.













 And is the design something you can easily hand off to someone?













 Lots of things to consider.











 Sent from my iPhone
















 On Aug 19, 2020, at 9:00 AM, Matthew Loraditch <
 mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com> wrote:










 




 *CAUTION:* This email originated from outside of the University of
 Guelph. Do not click links

 or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
 content is safe. If in doubt, forward suspicious emails to

 ith...@uoguelph.ca









 We still use Call Handlers. We have fewer resources who can handle
 script editing and somewhat frequent requests to change hours and such that
 we need the regular techs to be able

 to handle.





 Definitely a preference thing.





































































 *Matthew Loraditch**​*

















 *Sr. Network Engineer*

































 p: *443.541.1518* <443.541.1518>













>>

Re: [cisco-voip] [External] IPCC best practice

2020-08-19 Thread Erick Bergquist 
Didn’t the original name have Platform at the end , making P last character
after CRA?


On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 1:10 PM f...@browardcommunications.com <
f...@browardcommunications.com> wrote:

> Not blowing it up at all, I’ve enjoyed the back n forth!!
>
> I was going to try n be cool for a second and throw ICM out there.
>
> /FW
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Aug 19, 2020, at 2:42 PM, Anthony Holloway <
> avholloway+cisco-v...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> We might have to stop blowing up Fred's email with our inside jokes and
> musing of technology past.  Sorry Fred!  I hope you got the
> answers/feedback you were looking for.
>
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 1:39 PM Bill Talley  wrote:
>
>> +1000
>>
>> 
>>
>> Sent from an iPhone mobile device with very tiny touchscreen input keys.
>> Please excude my typtos.
>>
>> On Aug 19, 2020, at 12:51 PM, Anthony Holloway <
>> avholloway+cisco-v...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> 
>> GTFO
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 10:25 AM NateCCIE  wrote:
>>
>>> What about IP IVR?
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>> On Aug 19, 2020, at 9:16 AM, Lelio Fulgenzi  wrote:
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> +100 for Anthony!
>>>
>>> 😊
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Anthony Holloway 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 19, 2020 10:48 AM
>>>
>>>
>>> *To:* Lelio Fulgenzi 
>>>
>>>
>>> *Cc:* Matthew Loraditch ; Charles
>>> Goldsmith ; cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
>>>
>>>
>>> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] [External] IPCC best practice
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *CAUTION:* This email originated from outside of the University of
>>> Guelph. Do not click links
>>>
>>> or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
>>> is safe. If in doubt, forward suspicious emails to
>>>
>>> ith...@uoguelph.ca
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Wait Lelio, CRA is older terminology than CRS, so it should go:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> +1 IPCC
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> +2 CRS
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> +3 CRA
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Right?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 8:53 AM Lelio Fulgenzi 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Not much more to add here, except +1 for calling in IPCC. :) you’d have
>>> gotten +2 if you called it CRA. ;)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> But, seriously, you have to weigh the pros and cons of injecting a point
>>> of failure vs ease of administration.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> My thought process is, can you build automatic recovery? Or easily
>>> understood manual backup.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> And is the design something you can easily hand off to someone?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Lots of things to consider.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Aug 19, 2020, at 9:00 AM, Matthew Loraditch <
>>> mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *CAUTION:* This email originated from outside of the University of
>>> Guelph. Do not click links
>>>
>>> or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
>>> is safe. If in doubt, forward suspicious emails to
>>>
>>> ith...@uoguelph.ca
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> We still use Call Handlers. We have fewer resources who can handle
>>> script editing and somewhat frequent requests to change hours and such that
>>> we need the regular techs to be able
>>>
>>> to handle.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Definitely a preference thing.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Matthew Loraditch**​*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Sr. Network Engineer*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> p: *443.541.1518* <443.541.1518>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> w: *www.heliontechnologies.com* 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  |
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> e: *mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com*
>>> 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>

Re: [cisco-voip] [External] IPCC best practice

2020-08-19 Thread f...@browardcommunications.com 
Not blowing it up at all, I’ve enjoyed the back n forth!!

I was going to try n be cool for a second and throw ICM out there.

/FW



Sent from my iPhone

> On Aug 19, 2020, at 2:42 PM, Anthony Holloway 
>  wrote:
> 
> We might have to stop blowing up Fred's email with our inside jokes and 
> musing of technology past.  Sorry Fred!  I hope you got the answers/feedback 
> you were looking for.
> 
>> On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 1:39 PM Bill Talley  wrote:
>> +1000
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Sent from an iPhone mobile device with very tiny touchscreen input keys.  
>> Please excude my typtos.
>> 
>>> On Aug 19, 2020, at 12:51 PM, Anthony Holloway 
>>>  wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> GTFO
>>> 
 On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 10:25 AM NateCCIE  wrote:
 What about IP IVR?
 
 Sent from my iPhone
 
> On Aug 19, 2020, at 9:16 AM, Lelio Fulgenzi  wrote:
> 
> 
> +100 for Anthony! 😊
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> From: Anthony Holloway  
> Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2020 10:48 AM
> To: Lelio Fulgenzi 
> Cc: Matthew Loraditch ; Charles 
> Goldsmith ; cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] [External] IPCC best practice
> 
>  
> 
> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the University of Guelph. 
> Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender 
> and know the content is safe. If in doubt, forward suspicious emails to 
> ith...@uoguelph.ca
> 
>  
> 
> Wait Lelio, CRA is older terminology than CRS, so it should go:
> 
>  
> 
> +1 IPCC
> 
> +2 CRS
> 
> +3 CRA
> 
>  
> 
> Right?
> 
>  
> 
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 8:53 AM Lelio Fulgenzi  wrote:
> 
>  
> 
> Not much more to add here, except +1 for calling in IPCC. :) you’d have 
> gotten +2 if you called it CRA. ;)
> 
>  
> 
> But, seriously, you have to weigh the pros and cons of injecting a point 
> of failure vs ease of administration. 
> 
>  
> 
> My thought process is, can you build automatic recovery? Or easily 
> understood manual backup. 
> 
>  
> 
> And is the design something you can easily hand off to someone?
> 
>  
> 
> Lots of things to consider. 
> 
>  
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Aug 19, 2020, at 9:00 AM, Matthew Loraditch 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the University of Guelph. 
> Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender 
> and know the content is safe. If in doubt, forward suspicious emails to 
> ith...@uoguelph.ca
> 
>  
> 
> We still use Call Handlers. We have fewer resources who can handle script 
> editing and somewhat frequent requests to change hours and such that we 
> need the regular techs to be able to handle.
> 
>  
> 
> Definitely a preference thing.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Matthew Loraditch​
> 
> Sr. Network Engineer
> 
> p: 443.541.1518
> 
> w: www.heliontechnologies.com
> 
>  |
> 
> e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> From: cisco-voip  On Behalf Of 
> Charles Goldsmith
> Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2020 8:39 AM
> To: Johnson, Tim 
> Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] [External] IPCC best practice
> 
>  
> 
> [EXTERNAL]
> 
>  
> 
> Agreed with TIm, it's just simpler to involve less systems if you can.  
> With 12.0 UCCX and higher, the calendar function is a nice addition, no 
> more XML files for schedules.
> 
>  
> 
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 7:37 AM Johnson, Tim  wrote:
> 
> It seems to me that there's not a "best practice" label for most 
> scenarios. When I started with UCCX, we went to a call handler first to 
> provide us with an easy way to provide a schedule, and a familiar way for 
> the customer to record a greeting. Later, we ended up building the 
> schedule into our script and directing calls to the trigger. That's my 
> preference, just to involve less systems. 
> 
> Tim Johnson
> Voice & Video Engineer
> Central Michigan University
> Call me: +19897744406
> Video Call me: johns...@cmich.edu
> Fax me: +19897795900
> Meet me: http://cmich.webex.com/meet/johns10t
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: cisco-voip  On Behalf Of 
> f...@browardcommunications.com
> Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2020 8:19 AM
> To: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> Subject: [External] [cisco-voip] IPCC best practice
> 
> 
> Hello, I just have a quick questio

Re: [cisco-voip] [External] IPCC best practice

2020-08-19 Thread Anthony Holloway 
We might have to stop blowing up Fred's email with our inside jokes and
musing of technology past.  Sorry Fred!  I hope you got the
answers/feedback you were looking for.

On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 1:39 PM Bill Talley  wrote:

> +1000
>
> 
>
> Sent from an iPhone mobile device with very tiny touchscreen input keys.
> Please excude my typtos.
>
> On Aug 19, 2020, at 12:51 PM, Anthony Holloway <
> avholloway+cisco-v...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 
> GTFO
>
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 10:25 AM NateCCIE  wrote:
>
>> What about IP IVR?
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Aug 19, 2020, at 9:16 AM, Lelio Fulgenzi  wrote:
>>
>> 
>>
>> +100 for Anthony! 😊
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Anthony Holloway 
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 19, 2020 10:48 AM
>> *To:* Lelio Fulgenzi 
>> *Cc:* Matthew Loraditch ; Charles
>> Goldsmith ; cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
>> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] [External] IPCC best practice
>>
>>
>>
>> *CAUTION:* This email originated from outside of the University of
>> Guelph. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
>> sender and know the content is safe. If in doubt, forward suspicious emails
>> to ith...@uoguelph.ca
>>
>>
>>
>> Wait Lelio, CRA is older terminology than CRS, so it should go:
>>
>>
>>
>> +1 IPCC
>>
>> +2 CRS
>>
>> +3 CRA
>>
>>
>>
>> Right?
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 8:53 AM Lelio Fulgenzi  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Not much more to add here, except +1 for calling in IPCC. :) you’d have
>> gotten +2 if you called it CRA. ;)
>>
>>
>>
>> But, seriously, you have to weigh the pros and cons of injecting a point
>> of failure vs ease of administration.
>>
>>
>>
>> My thought process is, can you build automatic recovery? Or easily
>> understood manual backup.
>>
>>
>>
>> And is the design something you can easily hand off to someone?
>>
>>
>>
>> Lots of things to consider.
>>
>>
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>>
>>
>> On Aug 19, 2020, at 9:00 AM, Matthew Loraditch <
>> mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com> wrote:
>>
>> 
>>
>> *CAUTION:* This email originated from outside of the University of
>> Guelph. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
>> sender and know the content is safe. If in doubt, forward suspicious emails
>> to ith...@uoguelph.ca
>>
>>
>>
>> We still use Call Handlers. We have fewer resources who can handle script
>> editing and somewhat frequent requests to change hours and such that we
>> need the regular techs to be able to handle.
>>
>>
>>
>> Definitely a preference thing.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *Matthew Loraditch**​*
>>
>> *Sr. Network Engineer*
>>
>> p: *443.541.1518* <443.541.1518>
>>
>> w: *www.heliontechnologies.com* 
>>
>>  |
>>
>> e: *mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com*
>> 
>>
>> 
>>
>>  
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>>
>>  
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>>
>>  
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>>
>>  
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* cisco-voip  *On Behalf Of 
>> *Charles
>> Goldsmith
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 19, 2020 8:39 AM
>> *To:* Johnson, Tim 
>> *Cc:* cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
>> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] [External] IPCC best practice
>>
>>
>>
>> [EXTERNAL]
>>
>>
>>
>> Agreed with TIm, it's just simpler to involve less systems if you can.
>> With 12.0 UCCX and higher, the calendar function is a nice addition, no
>> more XML files for schedules.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 7:37 AM Johnson, Tim  wrote:
>>
>> It seems to me that there's not a "best practice" label for most
>> scenarios. When I started with UCCX, we went to a call handler first to
>> provide us with an easy way to provide a schedule, and a familiar way for
>> the customer to record a greeting. Later, we ended up building the schedule
>> into our script and directing calls to the trigger. That's my preference,
>> just to involve less systems.
>>
>> Tim Johnson
>> Voice & Video Engineer
>> Central Michigan University
>> Call me: +19897744406
>> Video Call me: johns...@cmich.edu
>> Fax me: +19897795900
>> Meet me: http://cmich.webex.com/meet/johns10t
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: cisco-voip  On Behalf Of
>> f...@browardcommunications.com
>> Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2020 8:19 AM
>> To: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
>> Subject: [External] [cisco-voip] IPCC best practice
>>
>>
>> Hello, I just have a quick question.
>> When setting up a call center for a SMB, Is it best practice to have the
>> main number go to a unity call handler 1st, with caller input going to uccx
>> triggers, or is it considered best practice to have the main number go
>> right to CCX?  I have seen both ways.
>>
>> Thank you.
>> ___
>> cisco-voip mailing list
>> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-vo

Re: [cisco-voip] [External] IPCC best practice

2020-08-19 Thread Bill Talley 
+1000



Sent from an iPhone mobile device with very tiny touchscreen input keys.  
Please excude my typtos.

> On Aug 19, 2020, at 12:51 PM, Anthony Holloway 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> GTFO
> 
>> On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 10:25 AM NateCCIE  wrote:
>> What about IP IVR?
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
 On Aug 19, 2020, at 9:16 AM, Lelio Fulgenzi  wrote:
 
>>> 
>>> +100 for Anthony! 😊
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> From: Anthony Holloway  
>>> Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2020 10:48 AM
>>> To: Lelio Fulgenzi 
>>> Cc: Matthew Loraditch ; Charles 
>>> Goldsmith ; cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
>>> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] [External] IPCC best practice
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the University of Guelph. Do 
>>> not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and 
>>> know the content is safe. If in doubt, forward suspicious emails to 
>>> ith...@uoguelph.ca
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Wait Lelio, CRA is older terminology than CRS, so it should go:
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> +1 IPCC
>>> 
>>> +2 CRS
>>> 
>>> +3 CRA
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Right?
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 8:53 AM Lelio Fulgenzi  wrote:
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Not much more to add here, except +1 for calling in IPCC. :) you’d have 
>>> gotten +2 if you called it CRA. ;)
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> But, seriously, you have to weigh the pros and cons of injecting a point of 
>>> failure vs ease of administration. 
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> My thought process is, can you build automatic recovery? Or easily 
>>> understood manual backup. 
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> And is the design something you can easily hand off to someone?
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Lots of things to consider. 
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Aug 19, 2020, at 9:00 AM, Matthew Loraditch 
>>>  wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the University of Guelph. Do 
>>> not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and 
>>> know the content is safe. If in doubt, forward suspicious emails to 
>>> ith...@uoguelph.ca
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> We still use Call Handlers. We have fewer resources who can handle script 
>>> editing and somewhat frequent requests to change hours and such that we 
>>> need the regular techs to be able to handle.
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Definitely a preference thing.
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Matthew Loraditch​
>>> 
>>> Sr. Network Engineer
>>> 
>>> p: 443.541.1518
>>> 
>>> w: www.heliontechnologies.com
>>> 
>>>  | 
>>> 
>>> e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> From: cisco-voip  On Behalf Of Charles 
>>> Goldsmith
>>> Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2020 8:39 AM
>>> To: Johnson, Tim 
>>> Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
>>> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] [External] IPCC best practice
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> [EXTERNAL]
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Agreed with TIm, it's just simpler to involve less systems if you can.  
>>> With 12.0 UCCX and higher, the calendar function is a nice addition, no 
>>> more XML files for schedules.
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 7:37 AM Johnson, Tim  wrote:
>>> 
>>> It seems to me that there's not a "best practice" label for most scenarios. 
>>> When I started with UCCX, we went to a call handler first to provide us 
>>> with an easy way to provide a schedule, and a familiar way for the customer 
>>> to record a greeting. Later, we ended up building the schedule into our 
>>> script and directing calls to the trigger. That's my preference, just to 
>>> involve less systems. 
>>> 
>>> Tim Johnson
>>> Voice & Video Engineer
>>> Central Michigan University
>>> Call me: +19897744406
>>> Video Call me: johns...@cmich.edu
>>> Fax me: +19897795900
>>> Meet me: http://cmich.webex.com/meet/johns10t
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: cisco-voip  On Behalf Of 
>>> f...@browardcommunications.com
>>> Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2020 8:19 AM
>>> To: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
>>> Subject: [External] [cisco-voip] IPCC best practice
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Hello, I just have a quick question.
>>> When setting up a call center for a SMB, Is it best practice to have the 
>>> main number go to a unity call handler 1st, with caller input going to uccx 
>>> triggers, or is it considered best practice to have the main number go 
>>> right to CCX?  I have seen both ways.
>>> 
>>> Thank you.
>>> ___
>>> cisco-voip mailing list
>>> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
>>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>>> ___
>>> cisco-voip mailing list
>>> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
>>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> cisco-voip mailing list
>>> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
>>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> c

Re: [cisco-voip] [External] IPCC best practice

2020-08-19 Thread Anthony Holloway 
GTFO

On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 10:25 AM NateCCIE  wrote:

> What about IP IVR?
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Aug 19, 2020, at 9:16 AM, Lelio Fulgenzi  wrote:
>
> 
>
> +100 for Anthony! 😊
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Anthony Holloway 
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 19, 2020 10:48 AM
> *To:* Lelio Fulgenzi 
> *Cc:* Matthew Loraditch ; Charles
> Goldsmith ; cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] [External] IPCC best practice
>
>
>
> *CAUTION:* This email originated from outside of the University of
> Guelph. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
> sender and know the content is safe. If in doubt, forward suspicious emails
> to ith...@uoguelph.ca
>
>
>
> Wait Lelio, CRA is older terminology than CRS, so it should go:
>
>
>
> +1 IPCC
>
> +2 CRS
>
> +3 CRA
>
>
>
> Right?
>
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 8:53 AM Lelio Fulgenzi  wrote:
>
>
>
> Not much more to add here, except +1 for calling in IPCC. :) you’d have
> gotten +2 if you called it CRA. ;)
>
>
>
> But, seriously, you have to weigh the pros and cons of injecting a point
> of failure vs ease of administration.
>
>
>
> My thought process is, can you build automatic recovery? Or easily
> understood manual backup.
>
>
>
> And is the design something you can easily hand off to someone?
>
>
>
> Lots of things to consider.
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
>
> On Aug 19, 2020, at 9:00 AM, Matthew Loraditch <
> mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com> wrote:
>
> 
>
> *CAUTION:* This email originated from outside of the University of
> Guelph. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
> sender and know the content is safe. If in doubt, forward suspicious emails
> to ith...@uoguelph.ca
>
>
>
> We still use Call Handlers. We have fewer resources who can handle script
> editing and somewhat frequent requests to change hours and such that we
> need the regular techs to be able to handle.
>
>
>
> Definitely a preference thing.
>
>
>
>
>
> *Matthew Loraditch**​*
>
> *Sr. Network Engineer*
>
> p: *443.541.1518* <443.541.1518>
>
> w: *www.heliontechnologies.com* 
>
>  |
>
> e: *mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com* 
>
> 
>
>  
>
>
>
> 
>
>  
>
>
>
> 
>
>  
>
>
>
> 
>
>  
>
>
>
> *From:* cisco-voip  *On Behalf Of *Charles
> Goldsmith
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 19, 2020 8:39 AM
> *To:* Johnson, Tim 
> *Cc:* cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] [External] IPCC best practice
>
>
>
> [EXTERNAL]
>
>
>
> Agreed with TIm, it's just simpler to involve less systems if you can.
> With 12.0 UCCX and higher, the calendar function is a nice addition, no
> more XML files for schedules.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 7:37 AM Johnson, Tim  wrote:
>
> It seems to me that there's not a "best practice" label for most
> scenarios. When I started with UCCX, we went to a call handler first to
> provide us with an easy way to provide a schedule, and a familiar way for
> the customer to record a greeting. Later, we ended up building the schedule
> into our script and directing calls to the trigger. That's my preference,
> just to involve less systems.
>
> Tim Johnson
> Voice & Video Engineer
> Central Michigan University
> Call me: +19897744406
> Video Call me: johns...@cmich.edu
> Fax me: +19897795900
> Meet me: http://cmich.webex.com/meet/johns10t
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: cisco-voip  On Behalf Of
> f...@browardcommunications.com
> Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2020 8:19 AM
> To: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> Subject: [External] [cisco-voip] IPCC best practice
>
>
> Hello, I just have a quick question.
> When setting up a call center for a SMB, Is it best practice to have the
> main number go to a unity call handler 1st, with caller input going to uccx
> triggers, or is it considered best practice to have the main number go
> right to CCX?  I have seen both ways.
>
> Thank you.
> ___
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
> ___
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
> ___
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
> ___
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
> ___
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
>
__

Re: [cisco-voip] [External] IPCC best practice

2020-08-19 Thread NateCCIE 
What about IP IVR?

Sent from my iPhone

> On Aug 19, 2020, at 9:16 AM, Lelio Fulgenzi  wrote:
> 
> 
> +100 for Anthony! 😊
>  
>  
>  
> From: Anthony Holloway  
> Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2020 10:48 AM
> To: Lelio Fulgenzi 
> Cc: Matthew Loraditch ; Charles Goldsmith 
> ; cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] [External] IPCC best practice
>  
> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the University of Guelph. Do 
> not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know 
> the content is safe. If in doubt, forward suspicious emails to 
> ith...@uoguelph.ca
>  
> Wait Lelio, CRA is older terminology than CRS, so it should go:
>  
> +1 IPCC
> +2 CRS
> +3 CRA
>  
> Right?
>  
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 8:53 AM Lelio Fulgenzi  wrote:
>  
> Not much more to add here, except +1 for calling in IPCC. :) you’d have 
> gotten +2 if you called it CRA. ;)
>  
> But, seriously, you have to weigh the pros and cons of injecting a point of 
> failure vs ease of administration. 
>  
> My thought process is, can you build automatic recovery? Or easily understood 
> manual backup. 
>  
> And is the design something you can easily hand off to someone?
>  
> Lots of things to consider. 
>  
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> 
> On Aug 19, 2020, at 9:00 AM, Matthew Loraditch 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the University of Guelph. Do 
> not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know 
> the content is safe. If in doubt, forward suspicious emails to 
> ith...@uoguelph.ca
>  
> We still use Call Handlers. We have fewer resources who can handle script 
> editing and somewhat frequent requests to change hours and such that we need 
> the regular techs to be able to handle.
>  
> Definitely a preference thing.
>  
>  
> Matthew Loraditch​
> Sr. Network Engineer
> p: 443.541.1518
> w: www.heliontechnologies.com
>  | 
> e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> From: cisco-voip  On Behalf Of Charles 
> Goldsmith
> Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2020 8:39 AM
> To: Johnson, Tim 
> Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] [External] IPCC best practice
>  
> [EXTERNAL]
>  
> Agreed with TIm, it's just simpler to involve less systems if you can.  With 
> 12.0 UCCX and higher, the calendar function is a nice addition, no more XML 
> files for schedules.
>  
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 7:37 AM Johnson, Tim  wrote:
> It seems to me that there's not a "best practice" label for most scenarios. 
> When I started with UCCX, we went to a call handler first to provide us with 
> an easy way to provide a schedule, and a familiar way for the customer to 
> record a greeting. Later, we ended up building the schedule into our script 
> and directing calls to the trigger. That's my preference, just to involve 
> less systems. 
> 
> Tim Johnson
> Voice & Video Engineer
> Central Michigan University
> Call me: +19897744406
> Video Call me: johns...@cmich.edu
> Fax me: +19897795900
> Meet me: http://cmich.webex.com/meet/johns10t
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: cisco-voip  On Behalf Of 
> f...@browardcommunications.com
> Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2020 8:19 AM
> To: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> Subject: [External] [cisco-voip] IPCC best practice
> 
> 
> Hello, I just have a quick question.
> When setting up a call center for a SMB, Is it best practice to have the main 
> number go to a unity call handler 1st, with caller input going to uccx 
> triggers, or is it considered best practice to have the main number go right 
> to CCX?  I have seen both ways.
> 
> Thank you.
> ___
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
> ___
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
> ___
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
> ___
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
> ___
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

Re: [cisco-voip] [External] IPCC best practice

2020-08-19 Thread Lelio Fulgenzi 
+100 for Anthony! 😊



From: Anthony Holloway 
Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2020 10:48 AM
To: Lelio Fulgenzi 
Cc: Matthew Loraditch ; Charles Goldsmith 
; cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] [External] IPCC best practice

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the University of Guelph. Do not 
click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the 
content is safe. If in doubt, forward suspicious emails to 
ith...@uoguelph.ca

Wait Lelio, CRA is older terminology than CRS, so it should go:

+1 IPCC
+2 CRS
+3 CRA

Right?

On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 8:53 AM Lelio Fulgenzi 
mailto:le...@uoguelph.ca>> wrote:

Not much more to add here, except +1 for calling in IPCC. :) you’d have gotten 
+2 if you called it CRA. ;)

But, seriously, you have to weigh the pros and cons of injecting a point of 
failure vs ease of administration.

My thought process is, can you build automatic recovery? Or easily understood 
manual backup.

And is the design something you can easily hand off to someone?

Lots of things to consider.

Sent from my iPhone


On Aug 19, 2020, at 9:00 AM, Matthew Loraditch 
mailto:mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>> 
wrote:

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the University of Guelph. Do not 
click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the 
content is safe. If in doubt, forward suspicious emails to 
ith...@uoguelph.ca

We still use Call Handlers. We have fewer resources who can handle script 
editing and somewhat frequent requests to change hours and such that we need 
the regular techs to be able to handle.

Definitely a preference thing.


Matthew Loraditch​
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com
 |
e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com












From: cisco-voip 
mailto:cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net>> 
On Behalf Of Charles Goldsmith
Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2020 8:39 AM
To: Johnson, Tim mailto:johns...@cmich.edu>>
Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] [External] IPCC best practice

[EXTERNAL]

Agreed with TIm, it's just simpler to involve less systems if you can.  With 
12.0 UCCX and higher, the calendar function is a nice addition, no more XML 
files for schedules.

On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 7:37 AM Johnson, Tim 
mailto:johns...@cmich.edu>> wrote:
It seems to me that there's not a "best practice" label for most scenarios. 
When I started with UCCX, we went to a call handler first to provide us with an 
easy way to provide a schedule, and a familiar way for the customer to record a 
greeting. Later, we ended up building the schedule into our script and 
directing calls to the trigger. That's my preference, just to involve less 
systems.

Tim Johnson
Voice & Video Engineer
Central Michigan University
Call me: +19897744406
Video Call me: johns...@cmich.edu
Fax me: +19897795900
Meet me: http://cmich.webex.com/meet/johns10t


-Original Message-
From: cisco-voip 
mailto:cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net>> 
On Behalf Of 
f...@browardcommunications.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2020 8:19 AM
To: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Subject: [External] [cisco-voip] IPCC best practice


Hello, I just have a quick question.
When setting up a call center for a SMB, Is it best practice to have the main 
number go to a unity call handler 1st, with caller input going to uccx 
triggers, or is it considered best practice to have the main number go right to 
CCX?  I have seen both ways.

Thank you.
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

Re: [cisco-voip] [External] IPCC best practice

2020-08-19 Thread Anthony Holloway 
Wait Lelio, CRA is older terminology than CRS, so it should go:

+1 IPCC
+2 CRS
+3 CRA

Right?

On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 8:53 AM Lelio Fulgenzi  wrote:

>
> Not much more to add here, except +1 for calling in IPCC. :) you’d have
> gotten +2 if you called it CRA. ;)
>
> But, seriously, you have to weigh the pros and cons of injecting a point
> of failure vs ease of administration.
>
> My thought process is, can you build automatic recovery? Or easily
> understood manual backup.
>
> And is the design something you can easily hand off to someone?
>
> Lots of things to consider.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Aug 19, 2020, at 9:00 AM, Matthew Loraditch <
> mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com> wrote:
>
> 
>
> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the University of Guelph.
> Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and
> know the content is safe. If in doubt, forward suspicious emails to
> ith...@uoguelph.ca
>
> We still use Call Handlers. We have fewer resources who can handle script
> editing and somewhat frequent requests to change hours and such that we
> need the regular techs to be able to handle.
>
>
>
> Definitely a preference thing.
>
>
>
> Matthew Loraditch​
> Sr. Network Engineer
> p: *443.541.1518* <443.541.1518>
> w: *www.heliontechnologies.com*   |
> e: *mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com* 
>
> 
> 
>
> 
> 
>
> 
> 
>
> 
> 
>
> *From:* cisco-voip  *On Behalf Of *Charles
> Goldsmith
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 19, 2020 8:39 AM
> *To:* Johnson, Tim 
> *Cc:* cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] [External] IPCC best practice
>
>
>
> [EXTERNAL]
>
>
>
> Agreed with TIm, it's just simpler to involve less systems if you can.
> With 12.0 UCCX and higher, the calendar function is a nice addition, no
> more XML files for schedules.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 7:37 AM Johnson, Tim  wrote:
>
> It seems to me that there's not a "best practice" label for most
> scenarios. When I started with UCCX, we went to a call handler first to
> provide us with an easy way to provide a schedule, and a familiar way for
> the customer to record a greeting. Later, we ended up building the schedule
> into our script and directing calls to the trigger. That's my preference,
> just to involve less systems.
>
> Tim Johnson
> Voice & Video Engineer
> Central Michigan University
> Call me: +19897744406
> Video Call me: johns...@cmich.edu
> Fax me: +19897795900
> Meet me: http://cmich.webex.com/meet/johns10t
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: cisco-voip  On Behalf Of
> f...@browardcommunications.com
> Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2020 8:19 AM
> To: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> Subject: [External] [cisco-voip] IPCC best practice
>
>
> Hello, I just have a quick question.
> When setting up a call center for a SMB, Is it best practice to have the
> main number go to a unity call handler 1st, with caller input going to uccx
> triggers, or is it considered best practice to have the main number go
> right to CCX?  I have seen both ways.
>
> Thank you.
> ___
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
> ___
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
> ___
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
> ___
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

Re: [cisco-voip] [External] IPCC best practice

2020-08-19 Thread Anthony Holloway 
Fred,

There's no best practice for this question/scenario.  You have to do what
is best for the given set of parameters the business gives you to design a
solution.

On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 8:53 AM Lelio Fulgenzi  wrote:

>
> Not much more to add here, except +1 for calling in IPCC. :) you’d have
> gotten +2 if you called it CRA. ;)
>
> But, seriously, you have to weigh the pros and cons of injecting a point
> of failure vs ease of administration.
>
> My thought process is, can you build automatic recovery? Or easily
> understood manual backup.
>
> And is the design something you can easily hand off to someone?
>
> Lots of things to consider.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Aug 19, 2020, at 9:00 AM, Matthew Loraditch <
> mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com> wrote:
>
> 
>
> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the University of Guelph.
> Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and
> know the content is safe. If in doubt, forward suspicious emails to
> ith...@uoguelph.ca
>
> We still use Call Handlers. We have fewer resources who can handle script
> editing and somewhat frequent requests to change hours and such that we
> need the regular techs to be able to handle.
>
>
>
> Definitely a preference thing.
>
>
>
> Matthew Loraditch​
> Sr. Network Engineer
> p: *443.541.1518* <443.541.1518>
> w: *www.heliontechnologies.com*   |
> e: *mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com* 
>
> 
> 
>
> 
> 
>
> 
> 
>
> 
> 
>
> *From:* cisco-voip  *On Behalf Of *Charles
> Goldsmith
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 19, 2020 8:39 AM
> *To:* Johnson, Tim 
> *Cc:* cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] [External] IPCC best practice
>
>
>
> [EXTERNAL]
>
>
>
> Agreed with TIm, it's just simpler to involve less systems if you can.
> With 12.0 UCCX and higher, the calendar function is a nice addition, no
> more XML files for schedules.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 7:37 AM Johnson, Tim  wrote:
>
> It seems to me that there's not a "best practice" label for most
> scenarios. When I started with UCCX, we went to a call handler first to
> provide us with an easy way to provide a schedule, and a familiar way for
> the customer to record a greeting. Later, we ended up building the schedule
> into our script and directing calls to the trigger. That's my preference,
> just to involve less systems.
>
> Tim Johnson
> Voice & Video Engineer
> Central Michigan University
> Call me: +19897744406
> Video Call me: johns...@cmich.edu
> Fax me: +19897795900
> Meet me: http://cmich.webex.com/meet/johns10t
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: cisco-voip  On Behalf Of
> f...@browardcommunications.com
> Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2020 8:19 AM
> To: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> Subject: [External] [cisco-voip] IPCC best practice
>
>
> Hello, I just have a quick question.
> When setting up a call center for a SMB, Is it best practice to have the
> main number go to a unity call handler 1st, with caller input going to uccx
> triggers, or is it considered best practice to have the main number go
> right to CCX?  I have seen both ways.
>
> Thank you.
> ___
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
> ___
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
> ___
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
> ___
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

Re: [cisco-voip] IPCC best practice

2020-08-19 Thread Brian Meade 
Doing it on Unity Connection historically had some benefits with the
calendaring but now you can easily do that in UCCX.

If you're worried about running out of CTI ports, offloading non-queue
calls to Unity Connection can help a lot there.

There is some light reporting in Unity Connection around what options are
pressed in Call Handlers but you won't be able to pass that info to agents
or store in the UCCX reporting.  Sometimes just the reporting requirements
will mean you have to keep the whole call flow in UCCX.

On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 8:19 AM f...@browardcommunications.com <
f...@browardcommunications.com> wrote:

>
> Hello, I just have a quick question.
> When setting up a call center for a SMB, Is it best practice to have the
> main number go to a unity call handler 1st, with caller input going to uccx
> triggers, or is it considered best practice to have the main number go
> right to CCX?  I have seen both ways.
>
> Thank you.
> ___
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

Re: [cisco-voip] [External] IPCC best practice

2020-08-19 Thread Lelio Fulgenzi 

Not much more to add here, except +1 for calling in IPCC. :) you’d have gotten 
+2 if you called it CRA. ;)

But, seriously, you have to weigh the pros and cons of injecting a point of 
failure vs ease of administration.

My thought process is, can you build automatic recovery? Or easily understood 
manual backup.

And is the design something you can easily hand off to someone?

Lots of things to consider.

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 19, 2020, at 9:00 AM, Matthew Loraditch 
 wrote:



CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the University of Guelph. Do not 
click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the 
content is safe. If in doubt, forward suspicious emails to ith...@uoguelph.ca

We still use Call Handlers. We have fewer resources who can handle script 
editing and somewhat frequent requests to change hours and such that we need 
the regular techs to be able to handle.

Definitely a preference thing.


Matthew Loraditch​
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com|  
e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com








From: cisco-voip  On Behalf Of Charles 
Goldsmith
Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2020 8:39 AM
To: Johnson, Tim 
Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] [External] IPCC best practice

[EXTERNAL]

Agreed with TIm, it's just simpler to involve less systems if you can.  With 
12.0 UCCX and higher, the calendar function is a nice addition, no more XML 
files for schedules.

On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 7:37 AM Johnson, Tim 
mailto:johns...@cmich.edu>> wrote:
It seems to me that there's not a "best practice" label for most scenarios. 
When I started with UCCX, we went to a call handler first to provide us with an 
easy way to provide a schedule, and a familiar way for the customer to record a 
greeting. Later, we ended up building the schedule into our script and 
directing calls to the trigger. That's my preference, just to involve less 
systems.

Tim Johnson
Voice & Video Engineer
Central Michigan University
Call me: +19897744406
Video Call me: johns...@cmich.edu
Fax me: +19897795900
Meet me: http://cmich.webex.com/meet/johns10t


-Original Message-
From: cisco-voip 
mailto:cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net>> 
On Behalf Of 
f...@browardcommunications.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2020 8:19 AM
To: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Subject: [External] [cisco-voip] IPCC best practice


Hello, I just have a quick question.
When setting up a call center for a SMB, Is it best practice to have the main 
number go to a unity call handler 1st, with caller input going to uccx 
triggers, or is it considered best practice to have the main number go right to 
CCX?  I have seen both ways.

Thank you.
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

Re: [cisco-voip] [External] IPCC best practice

2020-08-19 Thread Matthew Loraditch 
We still use Call Handlers. We have fewer resources who can handle script 
editing and somewhat frequent requests to change hours and such that we need 
the regular techs to be able to handle.

Definitely a preference thing.


Matthew Loraditch
Sr. Network Engineer
p: 443.541.1518
w: www.heliontechnologies.com | e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com
From: cisco-voip  On Behalf Of Charles 
Goldsmith
Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2020 8:39 AM
To: Johnson, Tim 
Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] [External] IPCC best practice

[EXTERNAL]

Agreed with TIm, it's just simpler to involve less systems if you can.  With 
12.0 UCCX and higher, the calendar function is a nice addition, no more XML 
files for schedules.

On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 7:37 AM Johnson, Tim 
mailto:johns...@cmich.edu>> wrote:
It seems to me that there's not a "best practice" label for most scenarios. 
When I started with UCCX, we went to a call handler first to provide us with an 
easy way to provide a schedule, and a familiar way for the customer to record a 
greeting. Later, we ended up building the schedule into our script and 
directing calls to the trigger. That's my preference, just to involve less 
systems.

Tim Johnson
Voice & Video Engineer
Central Michigan University
Call me: +19897744406
Video Call me: johns...@cmich.edu
Fax me: +19897795900
Meet me: http://cmich.webex.com/meet/johns10t


-Original Message-
From: cisco-voip 
mailto:cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net>> 
On Behalf Of 
f...@browardcommunications.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2020 8:19 AM
To: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Subject: [External] [cisco-voip] IPCC best practice


Hello, I just have a quick question.
When setting up a call center for a SMB, Is it best practice to have the main 
number go to a unity call handler 1st, with caller input going to uccx 
triggers, or is it considered best practice to have the main number go right to 
CCX?  I have seen both ways.

Thank you.
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

Re: [cisco-voip] [External] IPCC best practice

2020-08-19 Thread Charles Goldsmith 
Agreed with TIm, it's just simpler to involve less systems if you can.
With 12.0 UCCX and higher, the calendar function is a nice addition, no
more XML files for schedules.

On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 7:37 AM Johnson, Tim  wrote:

> It seems to me that there's not a "best practice" label for most
> scenarios. When I started with UCCX, we went to a call handler first to
> provide us with an easy way to provide a schedule, and a familiar way for
> the customer to record a greeting. Later, we ended up building the schedule
> into our script and directing calls to the trigger. That's my preference,
> just to involve less systems.
>
> Tim Johnson
> Voice & Video Engineer
> Central Michigan University
> Call me: +19897744406
> Video Call me: johns...@cmich.edu
> Fax me: +19897795900
> Meet me: http://cmich.webex.com/meet/johns10t
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: cisco-voip  On Behalf Of
> f...@browardcommunications.com
> Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2020 8:19 AM
> To: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> Subject: [External] [cisco-voip] IPCC best practice
>
>
> Hello, I just have a quick question.
> When setting up a call center for a SMB, Is it best practice to have the
> main number go to a unity call handler 1st, with caller input going to uccx
> triggers, or is it considered best practice to have the main number go
> right to CCX?  I have seen both ways.
>
> Thank you.
> ___
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
> ___
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

Re: [cisco-voip] [External] IPCC best practice

2020-08-19 Thread Johnson, Tim 
It seems to me that there's not a "best practice" label for most scenarios. 
When I started with UCCX, we went to a call handler first to provide us with an 
easy way to provide a schedule, and a familiar way for the customer to record a 
greeting. Later, we ended up building the schedule into our script and 
directing calls to the trigger. That's my preference, just to involve less 
systems. 

Tim Johnson
Voice & Video Engineer
Central Michigan University
Call me: +19897744406
Video Call me: johns...@cmich.edu
Fax me: +19897795900
Meet me: http://cmich.webex.com/meet/johns10t


-Original Message-
From: cisco-voip  On Behalf Of 
f...@browardcommunications.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2020 8:19 AM
To: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
Subject: [External] [cisco-voip] IPCC best practice


Hello, I just have a quick question.
When setting up a call center for a SMB, Is it best practice to have the main 
number go to a unity call handler 1st, with caller input going to uccx 
triggers, or is it considered best practice to have the main number go right to 
CCX?  I have seen both ways.

Thank you.
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

[cisco-voip] IPCC best practice

2020-08-19 Thread f...@browardcommunications.com 


Hello, I just have a quick question.
When setting up a call center for a SMB, Is it best practice to have the main 
number go to a unity call handler 1st, with caller input going to uccx 
triggers, or is it considered best practice to have the main number go right to 
CCX?  I have seen both ways.

Thank you.
___
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip