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

Pete Resnick <presnick@qualcomm.com> Mon, 04 June 2012 23:35 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 B049811E80FC; Mon, 4 Jun 2012 16:35:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.863
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.863 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.736, 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 8kAyTNgFCtof; Mon, 4 Jun 2012 16:35:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wolverine02.qualcomm.com (wolverine02.qualcomm.com [199.106.114.251]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70A7E11E80BA; Mon, 4 Jun 2012 16:35:52 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=qualcomm.com; i=@qualcomm.com; q=dns/txt; s=qcdkim; t=1338852952; x=1370388952; 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=cfgmiQwcTSP/JqUsfKjh1SwdQeRWc1xglOUTgZDhZ+E=; b=tp677cG1BB4HFVfTvwEABDyoRBBlejRxmjWnl+1F2aIuYqnzqcazjlHy dZOQrnXVd7a2ms4p5QRB5GebKKxQrNVgKUBq9/VSK18BDO1WT2PPrh7SY 9VB4sGBGKgRjk80RySCSAxEpUNPVT9tAoAi/Q5VIZSyICremI5l+CN6HN s=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5400,1158,6732"; a="195339506"
Received: from ironmsg02-r.qualcomm.com ([172.30.46.16]) by wolverine02.qualcomm.com with ESMTP; 04 Jun 2012 16:35:51 -0700
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.75,714,1330934400"; d="scan'208";a="159502179"
Received: from nasanexhc04.na.qualcomm.com ([172.30.48.17]) by ironmsg02-R.qualcomm.com with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-SHA; 04 Jun 2012 16:35:51 -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 16:35:51 -0700
Message-ID: <4FCD4653.6080105@qualcomm.com>
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2012 18:35:47 -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>
In-Reply-To: <F6882C013F7272CED4D345A9@PST.JCK.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 23:35:55 -0000

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.

pr

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