Re: [ietf-822] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-crocker-inreply-react-03.txt

francesco.gennai@isti.cnr.it Thu, 29 October 2020 13:28 UTC

Return-Path: <francesco.gennai@isti.cnr.it>
X-Original-To: ietf-822@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf-822@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AFC33A0115 for <ietf-822@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Oct 2020 06:28:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GGMl9Yx2dXwI for <ietf-822@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Oct 2020 06:28:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-clients2.isti.cnr.it (smtp-clients2.isti.cnr.it [146.48.28.37]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 792F73A0A47 for <ietf-822@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Oct 2020 06:28:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from webmail1-s2i2s.isti.cnr.it (webmail1-s2i2s.isti.cnr.it [146.48.28.31]) (Authenticated sender: gennai) by smtp-clients2.isti.cnr.it (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E6D58AE6E0; Thu, 29 Oct 2020 14:28:21 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Status: Clean
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.102.4 at smtp-out.isti.cnr.it
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2020 14:28:21 +0100
From: francesco.gennai@isti.cnr.it
To: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
Cc: ietf-822@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <01RRD8CLAU1O0085YQ@mauve.mrochek.com>
References: <160337881491.27133.9061463868224826181@ietfa.amsl.com> <295d4e28-c76f-b54a-cc2c-0e389bcb678a@dcrocker.net> <9f7ecde5-2a98-9c74-2828-dee8d4181e08@dcrocker.net> <CA+9+qfN9jE9KaUniDiWAP_khjaYktkU5GaUyvCebyfK0=vHZuw@mail.gmail.com> <01RRD8CLAU1O0085YQ@mauve.mrochek.com>
User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.4.9
Message-ID: <8941232589a1a5f31ef50132bef2b4ed@isti.cnr.it>
X-Sender: francesco.gennai@isti.cnr.it
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-822/5cwuwmZO5-LFBkeaCE8A98Jl5rk>
Subject: Re: [ietf-822] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-crocker-inreply-react-03.txt
X-BeenThere: ietf-822@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion of issues related to Internet Message Format \[RFC 822, RFC 2822, RFC 5322\]" <ietf-822.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf-822>, <mailto:ietf-822-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf-822/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-822@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-822-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-822>, <mailto:ietf-822-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2020 13:28:33 -0000

Hi, Ned.

> Nice to hear from you Francesco!
:-)

... ..
   ...
> 
>> But, I was thinking:
> 
>> this nice idea came from the socials where (in some cases like 
>> facebook)
>> the reaction can be an emoji or a comment (or both).
>> So, why not to define two types of reaction:
>> - emoji
>> - short text (comment)
> 
>> The short text reaction is similar to a reply by a text message, but 
>> will
>> have a different semantics so that clients developers could use it
>> in a different way than a reply message.
> 
> It's not clear to me how this differs from a regular response, or 
> perhaps
> more to the point, how a client would handle it differently.


The user reading a message could select an emoji or insert a comment in 
a short reaction text field.
For both cases a reaction email will be sent by the client.
For the comments (reaction text) the user doesn’t need to pass through 
the “standard” path to compose a reply message.

On the opposite, when a client displays a message it can “add” a view of 
the reactions (emoji, text or both). The reaction text is not threated 
like a reply message.

I think that we can see the benefits mainly on small displays, like 
smartphone.

That said...

>> Emoji reactions and short-text reactions should be carried by two 
>> simple
>> reaction message types. "Simple" is for: a message with only the top 
>> level
>> MIME part.
> 
> Well, one of the nice things about this proposal is as long as we make 
> it clear
> that the current content-disposition is only defined in conjuction with 
> an
> "emoji", we can always extende it later to other uses. But for now I 
> think
> keeping the ask we're making of client developers small is a good idea.

.... I agree with you that keeping the ask small is a good idea and that 
we can always extend the specification in the future.

/Francesco

> 
> 				Ned

-- 
Istituto di Scienza e Tecnologie dell'Informazione (ISTI)
National Research Council (CNR)
Area della Ricerca CNR di Pisa
Via G. Moruzzi 1, 56124 Pisa ITALY
phone: +39 050 315 2592
email: francesco.gennai@isti.cnr.it