Re: [apps-discuss] Review of draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-14

Pete Resnick <presnick@qualcomm.com> Mon, 04 June 2012 23:57 UTC

Return-Path: <presnick@qualcomm.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06D3311E812D; Mon, 4 Jun 2012 16:57:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.912
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.912 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.687, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, 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 wucnKoxN4O91; Mon, 4 Jun 2012 16:57:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wolverine02.qualcomm.com (wolverine02.qualcomm.com [199.106.114.251]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5867111E8125; Mon, 4 Jun 2012 16:57:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=qualcomm.com; i=@qualcomm.com; q=dns/txt; s=qcdkim; t=1338854248; x=1370390248; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc: subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:x-originating-ip; bh=knefK+wKdNGH/5OHwH6+5fO/kVtDnh7rNMYGo71cilU=; b=ae0PePN3YC7rgvKRGk9FotdBGok9zzLKU8I2eYezLq04ROCNCCFNvhlq X9A9OObUJl+kV3yw15iB7mvcceYiEc8mVJp39DpBAjbf5PfK0FEjzBzC5 LiLaqDgydXBlKDuBzN9E8d227Erw9PxFDrj8boO7Jai8MIsjMbQpATfc4 A=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5400,1158,6732"; a="195344953"
Received: from ironmsg03-l.qualcomm.com ([172.30.48.18]) by wolverine02.qualcomm.com with ESMTP; 04 Jun 2012 16:57:28 -0700
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.75,716,1330934400"; d="scan'208";a="260654153"
Received: from nasanexhc04.na.qualcomm.com ([172.30.48.17]) by Ironmsg03-L.qualcomm.com with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-SHA; 04 Jun 2012 16:57:24 -0700
Received: from Macintosh-4.local (172.30.48.1) by qcmail1.qualcomm.com (172.30.48.17) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.283.3; Mon, 4 Jun 2012 16:57:24 -0700
Message-ID: <4FCD4B62.204@qualcomm.com>
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2012 18:57:22 -0500
From: Pete Resnick <presnick@qualcomm.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100630 Eudora/3.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: John C Klensin <john@jck.com>
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20120521130747.0c219ab0@elandnews.com> <4FBDF199.2050300@isode.com> <4FC722A2.2050905@dcrocker.net> <4FC89931.5060201@isode.com> <4FC914DB.4000806@dcrocker.net> <4FCA6BFE.3050609@isode.com> <4FCD175D.30307@dcrocker.net> <01OGAJ8GBR2Q0006TF@mauve.mrochek.com> <F6882C013F7272CED4D345A9@PST.JCK.COM> <4FCD4653.6080105@qualcomm.com>
In-Reply-To: <4FCD4653.6080105@qualcomm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Originating-IP: [172.30.48.1]
Cc: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>, apps-discuss@ietf.org, draft-melnikov-smtp-priority.all@tools.ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Review of draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-14
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2012 23:57:29 -0000

On 6/4/12 6:35 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
> On 6/4/12 6:14 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
>
>> ...if the reality
>> is that people will demand mail prioritization --I suggest that
>> they will as long as there are Generals and they outrank
>> Lieutenants and maybe as long as there are mail service
>> providers who can figure out how to charge one class of
>> customers more for exactly the same service because that groups
>> is willing to pay to be important-- and, that by standardizing
>> something we can at least do a security analysis and contain
>> interoperability issues, then maybe we should just hold our
>> noses (or Alexey's) and do it.
>
> Speaking as the sponsoring AD, this is where I ended up. I find much 
> of this exercise silly; I find more than 5 "priorities" complete 
> overkill, and I think the likelihood that in a modern SMTP system any 
> of these priorities will cause a significant change in delivery time 
> (or order, for that matter) to be exceedingly low. That said, there is 
> a community that insists on attempting this, and it is not a 
> completely insular community; they will insist on implementations not 
> of their own making to do "the right thing" about this. Given that, 
> I'd prefer we document it and see if it gets deployment in any kind of 
> interoperable way. If it doesn't, we move it to Historic and move on 
> with our lives.

Sorry, should have ended with the appropriate question: Does anybody 
feel that we should *not* be moving forward and documenting this?

pr

-- 
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102