Currently urgency is low/medium/high. But this is more subjective to the uploader and hard for a client to be actionable about how to present it to a user. I was talking to @Nephyrin about this and wanted to bring it for a wider discussion to potentially change.

I do feel like phrasing updates as a subject low/medium/high is likely to make them less useful. As someone trying to think through how we should present/handle various updates in a client, I would be hoping to glean the audience/intent of an update, such as "if affected"[^2], "recommended", "security critical".

For the caution level, I'd want vendors to clearly indicate the caution they feel the end UI should treat their updates with, e.g.: "unattended/robust", "recommend-user-notification"[^1], "requires-user-caution"
Asking the vendor to assert how clients should present their updates is both likely to get more thoughtful answers as well as prevent miscommunication over how a vendor sees their update process and how various UIs present it.

First thing that jumps out to me is:

• How much are OEM's actually using low/medium/high?
• I could see it being a little bit painful to change considering older clients for fwupd. If it's not being used much maybe we just drop that field and make new ones? If it's used to some extent maybe we want LVFS to make new fields and map them to low/medium/high for older clients?