On 03/03/2012 18:07, ned+ietf(_at_)mauve(_dot_)mrochek(_dot_)com wrote:
[...]
So I have two suggestions. One is to leave it as is, and make it
experimental. If it turns out the tunnels all work the same way, you
can come back and add the spec about how they work and rev it as
standards track. The other is to take out the tunnel bit and make it
standards track now, so a compliant implementation needs
priority-aware MTAs from end to end. Even if you take out the tunnel
stuff in the spec, you can still tunnel in your implementations, using
whatever non-standard ad hoc kludges you want. Since the current spec
has gaps that would need to be filled by non-standard ad hoc kludges
anyway, you haven't lost anything.
I have to say I strongly prefer the latter, especially if it also includes
eliminating the prohibition on using other sources of priority information to
set the envelope priority level on submission. In fact given that prohibition
I see little point in implementing this, at least not in a fashion
that conforms to the specification.
I do prefer the latter as well (and yes, happy to remove the restriction), but
I don't feel very comfortable pretending that tunneling wouldn't happen. See my
other reply about this (to be written later today).
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf