Subject: RE: [lemonade] Message priority

From: "Vaudreuil, Greg M (Greg)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2006 08:14:17 -0500

Yes, please.

Must send (when the value is other than normal), Must receive, interpret, and present to user, may send and receive other popular versions as well.  If there is a conflict, use the value in the Importance header.

Greg V.

-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Burger [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, September 08, 2006 4:57 PM
To: Randall Gellens; Ben Last; IETF LEMONADE
Subject: Re: [lemonade] Message priority

Would it be reasonable to say, "Use Importance.  Yes, we acknowledge the
existence of proprietary headers for notating Importance, but Importance is
the only standard method of indicating priority."?

On 8/25/06 8:59 PM, "Randall Gellens" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> As an aside, note that 'Importance' is the politically-correct
> version of 'x-priority'.  Many clients today recognize both; some
> generate one, some both.
> --
> Randall Gellens
> Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
> -------------- Randomly-selected tag: ---------------
> Frankly, facts have nothing to do with what people's opinions are
> and will be.
>     --Jon Bond, president Bond + Partners (an ad agency), talking
>     about political commercials
> 
> _______________________________________________
> lemonade mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade
> 

_______________________________________________
lemonade mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade

_______________________________________________
lemonade mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade

---

From: "Vaudreuil, Greg M (Greg)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 07:19:47 -0500

The profile seems the right place.  

I'd also like to suggest that we require client support of sensitivity as well as importance.  Client support of these two attributes will go a long way to easing interoperability with MMS and VPIM.

For the profile, I'd crib off VPIM and suggest "Must accept and present to the user" and if sending, must use Importance and Sensititivity headers.

For sensitivity, I suggest we retain the linked semantic of "please do not forward"? This semantic is present in both VPIM and MMS and would be reasonable to perpetuate in LEMONADE mobile messaging.  I think we have consensus as part of that effort (and IVM) that this is not an enforceable dictate from the sender to the recipient, but is really more of a request to the recipient that a client may assist in honoring.  This semantic is also different from forward-lock DRM in MMS.  I don't see any point in trying to stick forward-lock in LEMONADE.

Sample text from RFC 3801

4.2.13.  Sensitivity

   The "Sensitivity:" field, if present, indicates the requested privacy
   level.  If no privacy is requested, this field is omitted.  The
   header definition is as follows:

   Sensitivity := "Sensitivity" ":" Sensitivity-value

   Sensitivity-value := "Personal" / "Private" / "Company-Confidential"

   SEND RULES

   A VPIM-conforming implementation MAY include this header to indicate
   the sensitivity of a message.  If a user marks a message "Private", a
   conforming implementation MUST send only the "Private" sensitivity
   level.  There are no VPIM-specific semantics defined for the values
   "Personal" or "Company-Confidential".  A conforming implementation
   SHOULD NOT send the values "Personal" or "Company-Confidential".  If
   the message is of "Normal" sensitivity, this field SHOULD be omitted.
   From: [X.400]

   RECEIVE RULES

   If a "Sensitivity:" field with a value of "Private" is present in the
   message, a conforming system MUST prohibit the recipient from
   forwarding this message to any other user.  A conforming system,
   however, SHOULD allow the responder to reply to a sensitive message,
   but SHOULD NOT include the original message content.  The responder
   MAY set the sensitivity of the reply message.

   A receiving system MAY ignore sensitivity values of "Personal" and
   "Company Confidential".

   If the receiving system does not support privacy and the sensitivity
   is "Private", a negative delivery status notification MUST be sent to
   the originator with the appropriate status code (5.6.0) "Other or
   undefined protocol status" indicating that privacy could not be
   assured.  The message contents SHOULD be returned to the sender to
   allow for a voice context with the notification.  A non-delivery
   notification to a private message SHOULD NOT be tagged private since
   it will be sent to the originator.  From: [X.400]

   A message with no privacy explicitly noted (i.e., no header) or with
   "Normal" sensitivity has no special treatment.

4.2.14.  Importance

   Indicates the requested importance to be given by the receiving
   system. If no special importance is requested, this header MAY be
   omitted and the value of the absent header assumed to be "normal".
   From: [X.400]

   Importance := "Importance" ":" importance-value

   Importance-value := "low" / "normal" / "high"

   SEND RULES

   Conforming implementations MAY include this header to indicate the
   importance of a message.

   RECEIVE RULES

   If the receiving system does not support "Importance:", the attribute
   MAY be silently dropped.

Greg V.

-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Burger [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 5:57 AM
To: Randall Gellens; IETF LEMONADE
Subject: Re: [lemonade] Message priority

This thread started when someone essentially asked "Where is X-Priority?"
As usual, you are correct: we were not discussing a particular document.
However, the question tells me we need to document *somewhere* there is just
a single way of indicating message importance, and that is Importance.

Is there any place other than the Profile to put that in?

On 9/13/06 2:55 PM, "Randall Gellens" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> At 7:28 AM -0400 9/13/06, Eric Burger wrote:
> 
>>  I am inclined to only reference Importance in the Profile.
> 
> Reference how?
> 
> I'd previously asked which document, if any, we are discussing.  So
> it is Profile?.  I confess that I don't see anything in profile-bis
> that seems to be an appropriate place to discuss the Importance
> header field.  Could you be more explicit, please?
> --
> Randall Gellens
> The significant problems that we face today cannot be solved at the
> same level of thinking that created them.         --Albert Einstein
>