Re: [Last-Call] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-crocker-inreply-react-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Kjetil Torgrim Homme <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, 2021-03-05 at 15:32 -0800, Dave Crocker wrote:
> On 3/5/2021 3:07 PM, Kjetil Torgrim Homme wrote:
> > On Fri, 2021-03-05 at 13:52 -0800, Dave Crocker wrote:
> > > Let's see whether I understand, with an example meant to be more
> > > interesting than the one in the specification:
> > > 
> > > > From:  me
> > > > To: you
> > > > Subject: I just got this message
> > > > 
> > > > ---- Forwarded message
> > > > From: someone else
> > > > To: me
> > > > In-Reply-To: a previous message between us
> > > > Content-Disposition: reaction
> > > > 
> > > > U+1F997
> > > 
> > > The containing message isn't using MIME, to make the forwarded message
> > > an attachment.  I think it doesn't matter, for this example.
> > 
> > Well, a real example would have to use MIME, a MUA should not try to
> > assign meaning to "---- Forwarded message" or "---- Vidaresendt
> > melding", but I'll consider your example a shorthand for a proper MIME
> > structure.
> 
> As I said, I believe use of MIME to make the contained message an 
> attachment, rather than inline, does not affect this.
> 
> Since you apparently think otherwise, please explain.

Your example message had a body text which happened to contain the
string "Content-Disposition".  It was not a header field, so it should
not be handled as such.

> > OK, so processing MAY recurse into the MIME structure?  I don't think
> > the current step 2 allows this.
> 
> Yes it does:
> 
> > The emoji(s) express a recipient's summary reaction to the
> > specific message referenced by the accompanying In-Reply-To header field,
> 
> The In-Reply-To: and Content-Disposition must be 'accompanying' each 
> other.  In the same message.

OK, step 1 says:

   1.  If a received message R contains an In-Reply-To: header-field,
       check to see if it references a previous message the MUA has
       sent or received.

So this is not just the top-level message R, but repeated for every
message R contained inside the message.  If you mean R *is* top-level,
and you think recursion is valid, the text should use the plural.

   1.  If a received message R contains In-Reply-To: header-fields,
    
   check to see if they reference previous messages the MUA has
     
 sent or received.

But I don't like that.  Better to spell it out.

   1.  If a received message R (or a message contained within it)
     
 contains an In-Reply-To: header-field,
       check to see if it
references a previous message the MUA has
       sent or received.

>    This can cause duplication in the
> > presentation of reactions, 
> 
> How?

By getting multiple copies of the same attached thread.  E.g., by
someone replying and including all preceding content.  Hence, the
processing may rack up the same reaction to a message multiple times.
 This is solvable though, and the exact method does not need to be
specified in the draft.


-- 
venleg helsing,
Kjetil T.