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

cketti <ck@cketti.de> Fri, 23 October 2020 14:29 UTC

Return-Path: <ck@cketti.de>
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 BAE0C3A0BEE for <ietf-822@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Oct 2020 07:29:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.343
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.343 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.247, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=cketti.de
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 1yyWnGLtgsZ2 for <ietf-822@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Oct 2020 07:29:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mo4-p00-ob.smtp.rzone.de (mo4-p00-ob.smtp.rzone.de [85.215.255.22]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 134BC3A0B8C for <ietf-822@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Oct 2020 07:29:42 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1603463380; s=strato-dkim-0002; d=cketti.de; h=In-Reply-To:Date:Message-ID:From:References:To:Subject: X-RZG-CLASS-ID:X-RZG-AUTH:From:Subject:Sender; bh=OjuCyYhVSibnxKEADp7AyaqUUzXpQOyX9zNnoR+o93E=; b=CKrdqt/qXRBdK1McaCoSk9vjq7VcUU99zkkz48R5dVv3LBibJ78iPW1WJLgxUUAIB1 aY/dF12SCsUSRXcBJJ2Apj/y8cvFVsZxstZfPmS41cNybG57sdHlLiv0G3pv9Jk/61Ws /+yW8kTBcjAJKuzDpz/QwN0iMXWXd34+IUXQj+BC6+hfA0F+wPCTFLD5oHvUX859sxs3 8iWRVDMGtZb+GIjzV7iBBTBGGrE9DP8qeU1oF8yLyrmRpaC30w8eM6N5F3vUqNtKIqcO 4PgUwUT3Hqc9eLXe0rrApPONXYE9JH6ky7V8ZCF0lxcEZVyl1UB7nch7z65bGWqHMVTy 3ZXw==
X-RZG-AUTH: ":L2ckdkutb+sebmQwUUWXIIIYdHNZM+Bv5gC+3oIoIo9zZk2oFnqgvCz+Lg=="
X-RZG-CLASS-ID: mo00
Received: from [192.168.238.245] by smtp.strato.de (RZmta 47.2.1 DYNA|AUTH) with ESMTPSA id Q0177cw9NETdVLT (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) for <ietf-822@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Oct 2020 16:29:39 +0200 (CEST)
To: ietf-822@ietf.org
References: <160337881491.27133.9061463868224826181@ietfa.amsl.com> <295d4e28-c76f-b54a-cc2c-0e389bcb678a@dcrocker.net>
From: cketti <ck@cketti.de>
Autocrypt: addr=ck@cketti.de; prefer-encrypt=mutual; keydata= xsFNBE49+OsBEADIu2zVIYllkqLYaCZq2d8r80titzegJiXTaW8fRS0FKGE7KmNttWvWdiyL qvWlP4Py9OZPmEBdz8AaPxqCFmVZfJimf28CW0wz2sRCYmmbQqaHFfpDrK+EJofckOu2j81c oaFVLbvkvUNhWU7/DKyv4+EBFt9fjxptbfpNKttwI0aeUVCa+Z/m18+OLpeE33BXd5POrBb4 edAlMCwKk8m4nDXJ3B+KmR0qfCLB79gqEjsDLl+y65NcRk5uxIk53NRXHkmQujX1bsf5VFLh a4KbUaB7BCtcSi1rY99WXfO/PWzTelOhpKDIRq+v3Kl21TipY0t4kco4AUlIx5b1F0EHPpmI Dr0gEheZBali5c9wUR8czc/HaNkRP81hTPeBtUqp1S7GtJfcuWv6dyfBBVlnev98PCKOJo05 meVwf3hkOLrciTfo1yuy/9hF18u3GhL8HLrxMQksLhD6sPzDto4jJQDxKAa7v9aLoR7oIdeW kn1TU61EODR/254BRMoq619hqJwSNt6yOjGT2BBvlwbKdS8Xfw7SsBGGW8WnVJrqFCusfjSm DBdV/KWstRnOMqw4nhAwNFfXmAL2L8a+rLHxalFggfGcvVpzDhJyTg+/R1y3JMCoFfdFuhOT fkMqjGx8FgTmINOt54Wf9Xg6W0hQh3i98Wza3n8NuSPQJtAdqQARAQABzRVja2V0dGkgPGNr QGNrZXR0aS5kZT7CwYEEEwECACsCGyMFCRLMAwAGCwkIBwMCBhUIAgkKCwQWAgMBAh4BAheA BQJOPftbAhkBAAoJEO4v7zp9qOKJG+oP/RBN5ahJCpwrk7U05J8x7UOPuP4UElMYoPYZCSp5 5mH6Xmr2C626DvTxhElz1WY7oIOJ7Mgp1RtGqZYV52d6fER10jowGbSkiFTvKb4PhQl4+AcG ODMYLRVBw90rRhDSXzBQMeiyUf7Wse1jPsBfuOe6V1TsAtqjaAzrUDQOcsjQqW5ezvIjGNTF unX6wMUHzSBX6Lh0fLAp5ICp+l3agJ8S41Y4tSuFVil2IRX3o4vqxvU4f0C+KDIeJriLAMHa jUp0V6VdisRHujjoTkZAGogJhNmNg0YH191a7AAKvVePgMQ/fsoW1hm9afwth/HOKvMx8fgK Mwkn004V/to7qHByWDND33rgwlv1LYuvumEFd/paIABhdLhC6o6moVzwlOqhGfoD8DZAIzNC S4q2uCg8ik4temetPbCc5wMFtd+FO+FOb1tO/RahWeBfULreEijnv/zUZPetkJV9jTZXgXqC I9GCf6MTJrOLZ+G3hVxFyyHTKlWtiIzJHlX9rd3oQc7YJbdDFMZA+SdlGqiGdsjBmq0kcRqh hEa5QsnoNm9tuPuFnL5oGG7OFPztj9tr9ViRvsFBlx9jvmjRbRNF3287j1r+4lbGigsA1o8b RkLLXVSK1gCwbOLAPNJYH5bde6O+Qb8bepg9TByiohsFssxYXHwbgu/pcCMU1hCf15t4zsFN BE49+OsBEACxJ8Ocv8y90ALoPcbh5LXVSgm8cAMvENXouVAPxkxp0y3bByDeXtQdmycmWmHD 0yE/sTYMz4cA0E6LBRaYPySz9cSNvJkoZPGot5bO9xISS1BmszmdLo8cjJFg9KyATHnumJED Bs1JCSmhLanlS3Iuu0PECxy3xN99Sck7XdIMJabOhQHez7gpf+dHGsq9MlzMeu4sCpMr12ix 2FI3StdzAtsaHOFa4q83zbV9CbQpgGKCdotmKu74C0GrFI281LC1LsIaJcqMcBOpQeqWgXU4 dXU2uJgjd2PIDPgjL3qkFHGbjshWQ1jbTDzwjXllkZCoH3Pn8B0ogh4Q1rv+0uv8Uqg296no F5unAANlhcSfqBME0kbyv/Pcuk96IhW45mbPrEkY62QLBN6wwtlhUVBQauv1e/njthdX6jSz 81zmlUF/YtwR7+F48QtD0KFRZ76UiZR0llbsOcQN0KmvBrgfNM1hKlQSd9IH6o9QQBK6SsGl SiTrr0bkGtsJKu4lzvyKOEu1EBxTvlPVvOz2jzXX48cRLFZnsXl4RfJec8B2MqiitD3If2A6 FJP/sOyZ93KZqXHopmFRA6/2Kq27y6WpB7hEIg4FmZnBxxFQOw237DlC6qtb56VatE4nLXWd tGfDCdoADD/RwmRz8S2nyN2KkK10d1CB2+PGcMvbXTL+zQARAQABwsFlBBgBAgAPBQJOPfjr AhsMBQkSzAMAAAoJEO4v7zp9qOKJBfgQAJDdCneNOBz8v9+ZggnVpuQx6XMRFEaGNV+pr+g/ qbz0B1DfRinmGE+sI3KbA7Ap9lF/ZqdHtuElzsWaFZSe0+i/0DfjFMJ7diwDvVwmSzIo4Xuy l+dRSY5XdVvV32rqoT5UdS86/XCSN1HYmHLGR91+kn1v4Sy0RDFpv92HwAlVVjZBvT2p4a6D XFa/duZP8ufFkSnSTjoDBhgWMiAL7Vm+ptEJ/e/ABOd6+5rB8GatOrD1yGSaQpegk3sjK6lP dBviSWNwXz/axbFPTi5A0a7ABC5XiPYlz0BsOiMXs3YvdwqmPmOMHgo7WMZv+byscLLIPwC1 ZDP1X7VoFkUp2Zp2cLm4Ac4MMsAcBh8Tx8+wld5QSmX8PFNy+DHd7tWzFLumPo1vt9tg/u/m Wi3SXo5piXBLy2iLXXOtCB0zPxm7Ve0w4qkGkZsi2OSsZ8Bi7YXGFLBiOx2AzahGtfnEXLQf JRFqYE4xyp8HprweXNXz8WqO8NeTtLb0gl9pA+VDKAG71iSb8XFEz0zwRB02FqwJPjcuwm3T APu9a/eNkV6PV3ZuIao3zHA13UJn437XxQda7AXeULovInXkD+8qZZbFgvHyVJFjet5XluYM rC8fTI+m7ulweK2Etcx9pHhrWXuEKpcbLOyT1bCcw/cUqLYPhv1m+xdxyx86XnqpMM1V
Message-ID: <7224fa10-fd8c-19d3-f59b-8415b07db77b@cketti.de>
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2020 16:29:38 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <295d4e28-c76f-b54a-cc2c-0e389bcb678a@dcrocker.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-822/kSlqZAkea2BDwRw1KRffB6Epzqg>
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: Fri, 23 Oct 2020 14:29:45 -0000

On 22.10.20 17:05, 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.
>
> Simply put, a reaction is a form of content, so carry it as content.


Is the ability to compose a reply message with meaningful text *and* an
emoji reaction really an important feature of this proposal? It feels
like this adds a lot of complexity for a case that's unlikely to be very
popular.

I propose the following: Return to the header-field. Reaction messages
should only contain a textual representation of the header value in the
body for compatibility reasons.

Not conflating reply text with a summary reaction makes a lot of things
easier for clients and users.

1. There will be users who won't care about emoji reactions and will be
annoyed by them. Being able to filter out messages by header-field is a
fairly common feature of email clients. If reaction messages are not
supposed to contain additional text there's no harm in filtering out
those messages.

2. Using a header-field would make it easy to perform a server-side
search to find all reactions to a given message. IMAP, for example,
supports search by header-field. Using a body part would make this a lot
more work.

3. Clients would most likely want to hide reaction messages and only
display the reactions on the original message. By using a header-field
clients that in a first step only download a set of interesting
header-fields can identify such messages and never have to download the
actual body (or body structure).


To my knowledge social networks don't support "comment carrying an emoji
reaction to the original message" either. Yes, we are able to do this
using email. But should we? As a client author I would be very annoyed
if I had to deal with reaction-only messages that should be hidden and
messages containing text and also a reaction.