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

Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com> Sat, 02 June 2012 01:00 UTC

Return-Path: <ned.freed@mrochek.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 3B6C911E808C; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 18:00:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 T9kwSxvY+3j3; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 18:00:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (mauve.mrochek.com [66.59.230.40]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB77A11E8087; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 18:00:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dkim-sign.mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01OG6I7B20GW002W9B@mauve.mrochek.com>; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 17:59:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01OG54121Q0W0006TF@mauve.mrochek.com>; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 17:59:56 -0700 (PDT)
Message-id: <01OG6I78VF6I0006TF@mauve.mrochek.com>
Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2012 16:56:51 -0700
From: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
In-reply-to: "Your message dated Fri, 01 Jun 2012 13:36:45 -0700 (PDT)" <01OG6914E4MS0006TF@mauve.mrochek.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; Format="flowed"
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20120521130747.0c219ab0@elandnews.com> <4FBDF199.2050300@isode.com> <4FC7204B.8020403@dcrocker.net> <01OG663WXFQA0006TF@mauve.mrochek.com> <4FC91F09.7070701@isode.com> <01OG6914E4MS0006TF@mauve.mrochek.com>
To: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
Cc: draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-13.all@tools.ietf.org, Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>, iesg@ietf.org, apps-discuss@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: Sat, 02 Jun 2012 01:00:04 -0000

> OK, let me take a look at -16 and I'll see what else, if anything, needs to be
> said. (I was looking at -15.)

Well, I looked, and now I'm even more confused. The statements about
implementations having to support at least six levels (with no indication
of what support means) are still there, but so are the Appendices about
mappings with far fewer levels.

So let me put this in a form of a question. Suppose I have an implementation
that is capable of storing and transferring all of the MT-PRIORITY levels,
but internally is only capable of doing the three X.400 levels. Would such an
implementation be able to offer this extension?

				Ned

P.S. The text about defaults and what is the normal level is now fine.