wfm Thanks Brian
On 2011-09-27 02:17, Barry Leiba wrote: > Thanks for the review, Brian. > >> I was briefly confused by Section 2.4. (Notify tag ":importance") >> >> It only mentions three possible values of "Priority" but RFC 3261 >> mentions four (the extra one is "emergency") and states that >> "additional values can be defined elsewhere." I think it should be >> noted that the :importance tag can only express a subset of the SIP >> Priority header semantics, and does not provide a separate category >> for "when life, limb, or property are in imminent danger" [RFC3261]. > > Yes, that's a good point. > > New text: > The ":importance" tag is intended to convey the importance of the > SIP MESSAGE notification, not the importance of the email message > that generated the notification. > The value of the ":importance" tag MAY, therefore, be > transformed into SIP > "Priority" header field (in addition to or instead of > including it in the > body of the message). > Note that because the Sieve ":importance" tag only has three values, > not all SIP "Priority" values can be represented in the > transformation. > If this transformation is done, the value of the "Priority" > header field MUST be > "urgent" if the value of the ":importance" tag is "1", > "normal" if the value of the ":importance" tag is "2", > and "non-urgent" if the value of the ":importance" tag is "3". > There is no mapping to the SIP value "emergency", nor to any > additional values > that might be defined. > > Does that work? > > Barry > _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
