[Bug 20819] no priority API

So first of all replying to bugs does not seem to work and people should be aware it is failing.

2nd I am not OK with this resolution. I think several people feel we need the API in 1.0


Begin forwarded message:

From: Mail Delivery System <MAILER-DAEMON@alln-iport-6.cisco.com<mailto:MAILER-DAEMON@alln-iport-6.cisco.com>>
Subject: Delivery Status Notification (Failure)
Date: October 31, 2014 at 9:24:44 AM PDT
To: <fluffy@cisco.com<mailto:fluffy@cisco.com>>

The following message to <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org<mailto:bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>> was undeliverable.
The reason for the problem:
5.1.0 - Unknown address error 550-'relay not permitted'
Reporting-MTA: dns; alln-iport-6.cisco.com<http://alln-iport-6.cisco.com>

Final-Recipient: rfc822;bugzilla@jessica.w3.org<mailto:bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Action: failed
Status: 5.0.0 (permanent failure)
Remote-MTA: dns; [128.30.52.39]
Diagnostic-Code: smtp; 5.1.0 - Unknown address error 550-'relay not permitted' (delivery attempts: 0)

From: "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <fluffy@cisco.com<mailto:fluffy@cisco.com>>
Subject: Re: [Bug 20819] no priority API
Date: October 31, 2014 at 9:23:17 AM PDT
To: "bugzilla@jessica.w3.org<mailto:bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>" <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org<mailto:bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>>




On Oct 31, 2014, at 9:10 AM, bugzilla@jessica.w3.org<mailto:bugzilla@jessica.w3.org> wrote:

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20819

Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> changed:

         What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
               CC|                            |harald@alvestrand.no
       Resolution|---                         |LATER

--- Comment #6 from Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> ---
The WG consensus is that we can live without this for the 1.0 API version

The likely control surface is the RTPSender API.

-

Uh, I don't think that works for a bunch of us. As previously agreed we would like the high, med, low, of whatever the levels are. Not OK with this result.