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

Francesco Gennai <francesco.gennai@isti.cnr.it> Thu, 29 October 2020 07:34 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 2E3553A0AAF for <ietf-822@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Oct 2020 00:34:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 x9GVqsFP1_Y0 for <ietf-822@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Oct 2020 00:34:11 -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 500993A0658 for <ietf-822@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Oct 2020 00:34:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf1-f41.google.com (mail-lf1-f41.google.com [209.85.167.41]) (Authenticated sender: gennai) by smtp-clients2.isti.cnr.it (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1485FAE6E0 for <ietf-822@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Oct 2020 08:34:07 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Status: Clean
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.102.4 at smtp-out.isti.cnr.it
Received: by mail-lf1-f41.google.com with SMTP id v6so1978833lfa.13 for <ietf-822@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Oct 2020 00:34:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532xL5TF+WkFuiCK4NtMM7pgT+TEhVceYFTfL6tBgSiGjUfvAH+1 iRypJJIQgMEvJcN5SFUjGCSkJbnqpApRRiz4fQs=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJytHuOLPX1YmpaNtlz0+JzId3MCU7VHux6KeSX+FTrefQ/R95xxFJzOPCu5UnoFEEKaL2ZO4YXKTrKiyaqkqr0=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:6d6:: with SMTP id u22mr1018969lff.432.1603956846523; Thu, 29 Oct 2020 00:34:06 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <160337881491.27133.9061463868224826181@ietfa.amsl.com> <295d4e28-c76f-b54a-cc2c-0e389bcb678a@dcrocker.net> <9f7ecde5-2a98-9c74-2828-dee8d4181e08@dcrocker.net>
In-Reply-To: <9f7ecde5-2a98-9c74-2828-dee8d4181e08@dcrocker.net>
From: Francesco Gennai <francesco.gennai@isti.cnr.it>
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2020 08:33:55 +0100
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CA+9+qfN9jE9KaUniDiWAP_khjaYktkU5GaUyvCebyfK0=vHZuw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CA+9+qfN9jE9KaUniDiWAP_khjaYktkU5GaUyvCebyfK0=vHZuw@mail.gmail.com>
To: ietf-822@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000127ad105b2ca4e1a"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-822/GgzrZHPz3FnA4Z5bQIsGftTzfpE>
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 07:34:14 -0000

On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 1:50 PM Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> wrote:

> On 10/22/2020 8:05 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
> > Ned's MIME-based approach, for carrying the raction emoji's, is better
> > than using a new header-field, which had some significant drawbacks.
>
>
> There have been some postings about the original version of the draft,
> but not much on the latest revision, which adopted Ned's MIME-based
> approach.
>
> Any comments, criticisms, or suggested revisions on it?
>
> I like the simpler solution, where the reaction message is only composed
by the top level MIME part.
I think it is more flexible and scalable than a multipart message structure
(mainly by a point of view of a client developer).
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.
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.

/Francesco