[ietf-822] Re: Comment on experimental RFC9078

[Dave Crocker <[e-mail]>]

On 7/17/2024 10:43 AM, John Levine wrote:
> Beyond bikeshedding about the name (I like Reaction-Enabled) this is
> an obvious good idea. We should have thought of it before we published
> 9078.

This is a special case of generally indicating the replies will not be 
accepted.  Or maybe just that they are not desired.

I believe there is no such convention formally, with the informal 
practice of noreply@ in the From field. I don't recall prior community 
discussion about this kind of feature, in particular or in general.

So while it is certainly a reasonable idea, it is probably significant 
that there has not yet been a general interest in communicating such a 
restriction.


> PS: This reminds us why the IETF traditionally wanted an
> implementation or two before publishing an RFC, so people notice stuff
> like this

The practice of doing implementations ahead of publication has only 
rarely been required.  Further, the practice has been for some basic 
interoperability testing under laboratory conditions, rather than 
extensive field use.

It usually takes field use to uncover this sort of community desire for 
additional features.  Hence, it tends to surface after initial 
publication, but before going to Full Standard.


d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
mast:@[e-mail]