It feels like what was discussed in these threads has been forgotten:
http://www.imc.org/ietf-mta-filters/mail-archive/msg09483.html
http://www.imc.org/ietf-mta-filters/mail-archive/msg10008.html
Specifically:
"This makes it sound like there are hard and fast rules between user status
notifications and the setting of the priority parameter, yet the discussion is
very brief and doesn't elaborate to rigorously define all those rules. I also
feel uneasy about adding syntax that permits only 3 levels of priority. I
think we should either drop the parameter, or extend it to allow an almost
arbitrary number and style of priority statuses, even if we only define 3 for
now. I'm thinking of the Priority/X-Priority/X-MSMail-Priority mess in mail
headers. I'd suggest a string which could be used with the relational draft to
do numeric comparisons if desired."
However I don't recall us reaching any conclusions, as the discussion wandered
towards the subject of passing parameters to the notification mechanism.
Nigel
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alexey Melnikov" <alexey(_dot_)melnikov(_at_)isode(_dot_)com>
To: <ietf-mta-filters(_at_)imc(_dot_)org>
Cc: "Peter Saint-Andre" <stpeter(_at_)jabber(_dot_)org>
Sent: Saturday, December 03, 2005 2:52 PM
Subject: Re: values of notify ":priority" tag
Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
In draft-ietf-sieve-notify-01 the possible values of the ":priority"
tag are "1", "2", and "3". There is a note about perhaps retaining
"high", "normal", and "low" instead. I wonder why we're not using
"urgent", "normal", and "non-urgent" as specified in RFC 1327 and
re-used in RFC 2076 and RFC 3261 (the latter also adds "emergency" but
I don't think we'd need that for email notifications).
Another question related to this: do we want to have 3 levels or 5 (like
in X-Priority header)?