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

ken carlberg <> Tue, 05 June 2012 11:23 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2A6521F865A; Tue, 5 Jun 2012 04:23:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.949
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.949 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.651, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yu20xvdGGVIm; Tue, 5 Jun 2012 04:23:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 874D721F864A; Tue, 5 Jun 2012 04:23:22 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=default; h=To:References:Message-Id:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:From:Content-Type:Mime-Version:Subject; bh=8onANVC7J/YoVbpcJCkxcmcap3kTrhW9R+iDhjrWjIY=; b=C3nXAYv0YVOcVcSQCYCOp0HIeKwGyGKKTu7enXGqc4jbrNjfD+FldTFuXfYUfJnr/CGFqggBYO2WYbRV8AVocor5olOQBhIAA15+jNhSUyXuA/xV1EzLTW0aHLEo7LJc;
Received: from ([]:54912 helo=miro-2.private) by with esmtpa (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from <>) id 1Sbrr0-0004H9-2Q; Tue, 05 Jun 2012 11:23:14 +0000
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: ken carlberg <>
In-Reply-To: <1E3DCEC5990AF898F1E3582D@PST.JCK.COM>
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2012 07:23:15 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <F6882C013F7272CED4D345A9@PST.JCK.COM> <> <1E3DCEC5990AF898F1E3582D@PST.JCK.COM>
To: John C Klensin <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278)
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname -
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain -
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain -
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 05 Jun 2012 08:36:12 -0700
Cc: Ned Freed <>,,,
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Review of draft-melnikov-smtp-priority-14
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2012 11:23:23 -0000

On Jun 5, 2012, at 6:07 AM, John C Klensin wrote:

> Sorry, the Sargent never trumps the General.  He may be sending
> a message on behalf of a body that can, with that body's
> authorization, or may, more generally, have authorizations the
> General does not, but...

yes, the Sargent can trump the General.  The simple example is a General is at his headquarters and sends a message describing new operational responsibilities for his staff -- mundane stuff.  The Sargent is at a remote Atoll monitoring live Satcom images and sees that a nuclear bomb has just exploded and sends a message to that effect.  In cases where there is contention of resources between message switching/forwarding centers/servers, the Sargent's message trumps the General's.  I was part of the team that wrote the code to do this. (and sorry, I can't go into any indepth descriptions of the systems, operating environment, etc.  I just wanted to point out that this form of content-prioritization has been done in the past).

>> In the past few years, some communities have had to rely on
>> the prioritization made available in X.400.  However, these
>> and other communities wish to migrate to SMTP, hence the
>> interest in produce the draft-melnikov-smtp-priority draft.
>> So what i wanted to point out is that people have indeed
>> worked on these systems and gained experience in the subject
>> area, and we'd like to migrate this to SMTP, as opposed to
>> just relying on proprietary hacks.
> I'm tempted to say that, if you want the X.400 service model,
> you should be looking to improve on MIXER, not SMTP.  I might

actually, my understanding is that there is no interest in the X.400 service model.  There is an interest, though, in the specification of a prioritization capability in SMTP, which has been accomplished in X.400.  A slight, but subtle difference.