Re: [ietf-822] A "Reaction" strawman to throw into the mix

[Dave Crocker <[e-mail]>]

On 11/2/2020 1:19 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
> On 2 Nov 2020, at 11:24, Dave Crocker wrote:

> I don't disagree. However, the semantics provided by MDN is that of 
> associating a disposition with a particular message,

That's what In-Reply-To: does, more generally.


> and it has all of 
> the machinery to do that association.

That's what MUA use of In-Reply-To: for threading does.


> Associating a reaction with the 
> original messages seems to me much the same as associating an indication 
> that a message was "read" or "dispatched" or "deleted".

I don't recall seeing a discussion here (or elsewhere) that looked for 
support of MDNs, that way, in MUAs.


> Yes, it 
> definitely extends the purpose of MDNs, but it doesn't seem like a huge 
> stretch.

Whereas going from a handling semantic to substantive recipient content 
semantic does seem like quite a basic change to me.


>> Adding the ability to have a reply message include content tagged as a 
>> reaction adds to the semantics of email exchange.
> 
> When I think of reactions, I think of providing a UI to add a "Like" 
> button or similar. That seems separate to me from replies, and in some 

That's the problem with focusing on a particular, user-level 
implementation choice, rather than the underlying semantics -- the 
'nature' -- of what is being done.


> cases replaces it. Having the the user readable part allows you to do a 
> reply should you desire,

Except that that's not the nature of MDNs.  And it's not how they are 
(typically?  Ever?) implemented.


> As I said, I agree that this is a change in purpose for MDNs, but I 
> don't see it as particularly horrible distortion.
> 
> But as I said at the beginning, I can certainly live with Ned's 
> proposal. MDNs just struck me as cleaner.



d/


-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net