IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Ieprep] Re: Discussion of Internet-Draft for SMTP priorities

Janet P Gunn <jgunn6@csc.com> Tue, 13 June 2006 14:40 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FqA4R-00040B-6I; Tue, 13 Jun 2006 10:40:43 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FqA4P-0003wL-U3 for ieprep@ietf.org; Tue, 13 Jun 2006 10:40:41 -0400
Received: from amer-mta07.csc.com ([20.137.52.151]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FqA4O-0000Va-Lg for ieprep@ietf.org; Tue, 13 Jun 2006 10:40:41 -0400
Received: from amer-gw09.csc.com (amer-gw09.csc.com [20.6.39.245]) by amer-mta07.csc.com (Switch-3.1.6/Switch-3.1.7) with ESMTP id k5DEedIb011804; Tue, 13 Jun 2006 10:40:40 -0400 (EDT)
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20060613090916.0337b380@ihmail.ih.lucent.com>
Subject: Re: [Ieprep] Re: Discussion of Internet-Draft for SMTP priorities
To: John Rosenberg <jrrosenberg@lucent.com>
X-Mailer: Lotus Notes 652HF83 November 04, 2004
Message-ID: <OF07BB3FBD.FB5CA5BC-ON8525718C.004FB1CE-8525718C.00509FF4@csc.com>
From: Janet P Gunn <jgunn6@csc.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 10:40:37 -0400
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on AMER-GW09/SRV/CSC(Release 6.5.3|September 14, 2004) at 06/13/2006 10:39:41 AM
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 6cca30437e2d04f45110f2ff8dc1b1d5
Cc: ieprep@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ieprep@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Internet Emergency Preparedness Working Group <ieprep.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep>, <mailto:ieprep-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ieprep@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ieprep-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep>, <mailto:ieprep-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: ieprep-bounces@ietf.org




Yes, you are right, I forgot about that.

 I will refine my statement.

RFC 4412 lists "4,3,2,1,0" as the "lowest to highest" ordering for q375,
ets, and wps.
q375 is, effectively, a form of MLPP.
RFC 4412 lists text, rather than numeric values, for dsn and dsrn.
eMLPP uses "4,3,2,1,0,B,A" as the "lowest to highest"

So I think we need to have FLEXIBILITY in the ordering of the priority
levels.

Janet


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is a PRIVATE message. If you are not the intended recipient, please
delete without copying and kindly advise us by e-mail of the mistake in
delivery. NOTE: Regardless of content, this e-mail shall not operate to
bind CSC to any order or other contract unless pursuant to explicit written
agreement or government initiative expressly permitting the use of e-mail
for such purpose.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




                                                                           
             John Rosenberg                                                
             <jrrosenberg@luce                                             
             nt.com>                                                    To 
                                       ieprep@ietf.org                     
             06/13/2006 10:15                                           cc 
             AM                                                            
                                                                   Subject 
                                       [Ieprep] Re: Discussion of          
                                       Internet-Draft for SMTP priorities  
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           




At 11:51 PM 6/12/2006, Janet Gunn wrote:

 >Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 14:07:22 -0400
 >From: Janet P Gunn <jgunn6@csc.com>
 >
 >Current implementations of  MLPP, eMLPP, WPS, and RPH use 0 to represent
 >the high priority group, with 1.2.3.4, etc representing successively
lower
 >priorities.  What is the rationale for turning this upside down and using
0
 >to represent "non-priority"?

The current DISA specification for MLPP on VoIP networks specifies RPH
r-priority values of 0, 2, 4, 6, 8, 9 in ascending order of priority (e.g.
0 = Routine and 9 = F-O-O).

John Rosenberg


_______________________________________________
Ieprep mailing list
Ieprep@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep



_______________________________________________
Ieprep mailing list
Ieprep@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email