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

ken carlberg <carlberg@g11.org.uk> Tue, 05 June 2012 11:23 UTC

Return-Path: <carlberg@g11.org.uk>
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 A2A6521F865A; Tue, 5 Jun 2012 04:23:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.949
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.949 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.651, 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 yu20xvdGGVIm; Tue, 5 Jun 2012 04:23:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from portland.eukhosting.net (portland.ukserverhosting.net [92.48.103.133]) by ietfa.amsl.com (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; d=g11.org.uk; 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 c-76-111-69-4.hsd1.va.comcast.net ([76.111.69.4]:54912 helo=miro-2.private) by portland.eukhosting.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from <carlberg@g11.org.uk>) 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 <carlberg@g11.org.uk>
In-Reply-To: <1E3DCEC5990AF898F1E3582D@PST.JCK.COM>
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2012 07:23:15 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <6828E9C8-3C2A-46C9-8BD1-1308000CD91B@g11.org.uk>
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> <E503581B-E89A-4E09-B06C-CF18263F7376@g11.org.uk> <1E3DCEC5990AF898F1E3582D@PST.JCK.COM>
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
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 - portland.eukhosting.net
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - g11.org.uk
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 05 Jun 2012 08:36:12 -0700
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: 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.

cheers,

-ken