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

From: John Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 09:15:00 -0500

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

 >Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 14:07:22 -0400
 >From: Janet P Gunn <[email-masked]>
 >
 >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
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep

---

From: Janet P Gunn <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 10:40:37 -0400

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 
                                       [email-masked]                     
             06/13/2006 10:15                                           cc 
             AM                                                            
                                                                   Subject 
                                       [Ieprep] Re: Discussion of          
                                       Internet-Draft for SMTP priorities  

                                                                           

John Rosenberg