Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-sieve-notify-sip-message-05.txt

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

wfm

Thanks
   Brian

On 2011-09-27 02:17, Barry Leiba wrote:
> Thanks for the review, Brian.
> 
>> I was briefly confused by Section 2.4. (Notify tag ":importance")
>>
>> It only mentions three possible values of "Priority" but RFC 3261
>> mentions four (the extra one is "emergency") and states that
>> "additional values can be defined elsewhere." I think it should be
>> noted that the :importance tag can only express a subset of the SIP
>> Priority header semantics, and does not provide a separate category
>> for "when life, limb, or property are in imminent danger" [RFC3261].
> 
> Yes, that's a good point.
> 
> New text:
>           The ":importance" tag is intended to convey the importance of the
>           SIP MESSAGE notification, not the importance of the email message
>           that generated the notification.
>           The value of the ":importance" tag MAY, therefore, be
> transformed into SIP
>           "Priority" header field (in addition to or instead of
> including it in the
>           body of the message).
>           Note that because the Sieve ":importance" tag only has three values,
>           not all SIP "Priority" values can be represented in the
> transformation.
>           If this transformation is done, the value of the "Priority"
> header field MUST be
>           "urgent" if the value of the ":importance" tag is "1",
>           "normal" if the value of the ":importance" tag is "2",
>           and "non-urgent" if the value of the ":importance" tag is "3".
>           There is no mapping to the SIP value "emergency", nor to any
> additional values
>           that might be defined.
> 
> Does that work?
> 
> Barry
>