Here is a question regarding SCE-API 1.0: In Section 5.2.1 on p. 36
of the SCE-API 1.0 spec it is stated that the message output port
priority "for certain implementations [...] can be used as a `hint'
to the infrastructure linker to decide which output ports to service
first".  This sounds to me as if it is up to the implementation
whether to implement port priorities or not since the paragraph talks
about `certain implementations' and `hint'.  So the question is: are
port priorities required to be implemented and handled correctly or
are they optional?  If they are required it may be a good idea to
strengthen the language around them.  If they are optional, I think
their value is questionable since the user cannot rely on them.

johnS:
I propose that we take out the "hint" language and just
make it required.

This removes ambiguity from the spec.

Here is proposed new wording for section "5.2.1 Parameters",
paragraph under "Message output port priority":

<beginning-of-rewording>
"The priority of a message output port shall be derived from the
PortPrority parameter defined in the SceMiMessageOutPort macro.
This must be used by the infrastructure linker to decide which
output ports to service first (when they present message data
on the same uclock) and are implemented over a number of “physical
message channels” which is less than the limitless number of virtual
message channels. For those who do not care, the default value of
10 does not need to be overridden and need not be specified in the
instantiation statement.

"With some the output port priority must follow the following semantics:
— 0 < allowed priority values < 20
— The default priority value is 10.
— The lower the number, the higher the priority.
— Output port priority 0 is reserved for internal use by the infrastructure.
— For message output ports with the same priority number, their relative
   priority is undetermined and strictly an artifact of infrastructure
   linker implementation."

<end-of-rewording>