RE: Re: NOW xAP / Outlook / PrioritisationWAS HomeDisplay- sound?

["Ray Barnett" <lists@xxxxxxx>]

I'm persuadable either way if it is optional. One further point that comes to mind though - 15 levels of priority seems excessive to my thinking. For starters - who decides the priority. A top priority message from a thermostat doesn't necessarily have to trigger a DEFCON1 nuclear response from the burglar alarm. Thus I think a smaller range of priorities will make it easier for devices (and programmers/users) to decide what to do with it. As a model, I quite like the NT event log with Information/Warning/Critical levels.

 

Thus a normal email from outlook would be set to "Information", priority email might trigger a "Warning", and a  thermostat recording out of parameter temperatures for a "long" time period might decide to issue a "critical" message. What any devices decide to do with that is then down to them.

 

In summary, optional is good since it means packets sizes can be kept tiny where necessary, and the fewer levels possible is also good, for simplicity.

 

Ray.

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Harrison [mailto:Mark.Harrison@xxxxxxx]
Sent: 15 August 2002 15:43
To: ukha_d@xxxxxxxSubject: RE: [ukha_d] Re: NOW xAP / Outlook / PrioritisationWAS HomeDisplay- sound?

Stuart,

I think that a modification to point 2 is a potential GOOD reason for making it a header item.

xAP isn't inherently FIFO at all. It's inherently connectionless.

However, a transport-bridge (say from ethernet to master-slave serial) WOULD be FIFO, and the ability for IT to prioritise is something that's better done in the header?

What say you, Patrick, Ray - it's OPTIONAL, after all.


M.

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

ADVERTISEMENT

For more information: http://www.automatedhome.co.uk
Post message: ukha_d@xxxxxxx 
Subscribe:  ukha_d-subscribe@xxxxxxx 
Unsubscribe:  ukha_d-unsubscribe@xxxxxxx 
List owner:  ukha_d-owner@xxxxxxx

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.