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

[Dave Crocker <[e-mail]>]

On 3/4/2021 12:41 AM, Kjetil Torgrim Homme wrote:
>     2.  If R's In-Reply-To: does reference one, then check R's message
>         content for a part with a "reaction" Content-Disposition header
>         field, at either the outermost level or as part of a multipart
> at
>         the outermost level.
> 
> This means a forwarded message will*not*  get its embedded reactions
> processed.  Well, forwarded messages will typically not have I-R-T set,
> but if a message includes previous correspondence as an attached MIME
> document.  

Not 'typically'.  A forwarded message is not a reply.  So I'm not sure 
how this is a problem.

In any event, if there is no In-reply-to: field, then this specification 
is not relevant to that message.


> However, In-reply-to in messages in the attached
> correspondence will get their reactions processed if they are at the
> correct relative level in the structure.

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.

And the question is whether the contained message's reaction will be 
processed as a reaction.  The answer depends on how the MUA processes 
such things.

In terms of semantics, the reaction is associated with that contained 
(forwarded) message and not with the upper level (containing) message.


d/


-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net