Re: [Last-Call] New Version Notification for draft-crocker-inreply-react-07.txt

John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> Sat, 27 February 2021 00:07 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.com>
X-Original-To: last-call@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: last-call@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 912483A146C for <last-call@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Feb 2021 16:07:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.85
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.85 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, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, SPF_PASS=-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=iecc.com header.b=kB6yTH1t; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=gabsGl8C
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 NGL7zStssa5G for <last-call@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Feb 2021 16:07:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (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 DBE053A1466 for <last-call@ietf.org>; Fri, 26 Feb 2021 16:07:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 47485 invoked from network); 27 Feb 2021 00:07:47 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:cleverness; s=b97b.60398d53.k2102; bh=O7WUbUe9O5XqRvM/71jAdyTAtLlefKKnBso6Plg5520=; b=kB6yTH1tWtaaB4OH2z7Ww8J8W1BExqwHUw6IWqWPczgELh8hRd2fpJD0db7yR/rH6Cl7xVyzJKOpEIOO1KodrkyCUW/HMkelPYJKnnBnAiyDshZksljeZieqp38D4GiZpncv4n7/sPzDyP77AeAPGg1pS70lDgVHvxAylKO44grPeQ3MF0XKZwIgH77LGre5y2c/HeU58tw/d9BXqs+UT/i3+QnRPWI8I2nKGwP+5mGBsiH5HOB9gDkM/josyRAKwdJ/5osO2irSG9lxoRAI47RYfg1SJy+njW23ESgRF2ErHRWcq9uAjZSK4+gRjWBPcbML9nY/Knr0psmwLDe/Iw==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:cleverness; s=b97b.60398d53.k2102; bh=O7WUbUe9O5XqRvM/71jAdyTAtLlefKKnBso6Plg5520=; b=gabsGl8C4SnavXxVXGW9zPpwPlgvLK4QrkXMbKkfTDoczfRnBqUak7VU3ksYdPLJxPDQgSuAPwouWqSkbFvqeReid0WGWBjaaYB0/WNKnjeGtvEtp/r7CIbLa9wbLvjDzTLCXxoHSTZD0NXEeDdXncReOWrfEoUgMWUDqm/LYchcqRvlgSVPOF8+ju6xU4rxTESR16NNnKhEgCGLr0vqhAPi1jf/nLN2iEMdGn+PUB8ktMZ9ZAS2HWLSRB7eLaBVjWFohC8/z3vcpFPoZ3DxLWYp3hfLFquMsYAYsmgWQ9uOV4pYR8rCO4NGDzhSkFbGG7gpRH0Gko/WCQYfmk8OfA==
Received: from ary.qy ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTPS (TLS1.2 ECDHE-RSA AES-256-GCM AEAD) via TCP6; 27 Feb 2021 00:07:47 -0000
Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id 583206EF7036; Fri, 26 Feb 2021 19:07:45 -0500 (EST)
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2021 19:07:45 -0500
Message-Id: <20210227000746.583206EF7036@ary.qy>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: last-call@ietf.org
Cc: dcrocker@bbiw.net
In-Reply-To: <cf05c85a-1674-5c23-2eff-6d5b7f9a3736@bbiw.net>
Organization: Taughannock Networks
X-Headerized: yes
Cleverness: minimal
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/last-call/0mkw1ko18eRf-ad8wnr0CuA7wyc>
Subject: Re: [Last-Call] New Version Notification for draft-crocker-inreply-react-07.txt
X-BeenThere: last-call@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Last Calls <last-call.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/last-call>, <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/last-call/>
List-Post: <mailto:last-call@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call>, <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2021 00:07:53 -0000

In article <cf05c85a-1674-5c23-2eff-6d5b7f9a3736@bbiw.net> you write:
>On 2/26/2021 2:54 PM, John Levine wrote:
>> At this point I don't see any compelling reason to limit the reactions
>> to Unicode emoji and exclude text reactions like :-( ...

>Which means that the data in that body-part can be anything, since 
>there's no obvious way to restrict it.

Yup.

>For example something like the common mechanism of showing the symbol 
>and then putting a count next to it, for the number of responses that 
>were received using it, does not work if the 'symbol' can be a long 
>string of arbitrary text.

It only works if there's a small controlled vocabulary, but it doesn't
matter what the vocabulary is.  There are over 3500 Unicode emoji
and exponentially more if you add modifiers like skin tone, so that's
not very controlled either.

>That level of data flexibility is likely to make MUA design choices
>pretty limited, which in turn might limit the utility of the mechanism.

I think we all agree that we are not very good at guessing what MUAs
will do or what UI will turn out to be more or less successful. The
recent discussion with Patrik tells us that trying to pick a small
universal set of emoji won't work. Let the reaction be whatever people
want to send, and if MUAs find, e.g., they feature the same set of
reactions as in some popular IM system, they can do so without asking
us for permission.

R's,
John