IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Last-Call] Genart last call review of draft-crocker-inreply-react-07

Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net> Fri, 29 January 2021 21:00 UTC

Return-Path: <dcrocker@bbiw.net>
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 824283A12ED for <last-call@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Jan 2021 13:00:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.121
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.121 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=-0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, 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=bbiw.net header.b=r79xFWxD; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=H7O1PGTs
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 RftIe5akTf4n for <last-call@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Jan 2021 13:00:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from wout2-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout2-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2B8113A12EA for <last-call@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 Jan 2021 13:00:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.42]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B454FBA; Fri, 29 Jan 2021 16:00:40 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 29 Jan 2021 16:00:40 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=bbiw.net; h= subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=fm1; bh=/ yW+kkDwjzJGd8bOkD1ZxjhFGlT9kqq4RkFiz4BIwU0=; b=r79xFWxDUF6lDcc8w eEJmZlIGwGbjhhKGvdQwfHC4G9ZzSt6yOyJd1ROrFXg4LM1xA3wkPMhDL8fjjAZd McU9i/BYIvSfdbLApidolZd8ceFalle3oqjJw0AKBVHJlUYZwTkxlQuhFSbAjGrK m+NOoZqcJ1BDY0uxwosQSApBNVzEP9heE80HN4aijhOGcqni5qF3asVzsh+9BCoM YWgTiSWTk4896jvcVk0Vj2pRb9PB8NPotgY2Lt13Zugmimee/14i3/Scx9mcRLtx HoS5sRQmRlS2rQXWAjSdTKjPe77W61DizJKiv7DJvwGqi39DH3bEuveLQ3w9pX9a jU3Mw==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=/yW+kkDwjzJGd8bOkD1ZxjhFGlT9kqq4RkFiz4BIw U0=; b=H7O1PGTsNlzxniPR7GMUJD4Svqu+M92TYPijyLCvygM53VO590hM+47lU tiI898n4q9UNKp72Eid2dXnJoutammdHqmlcnYpBPfnBhNwS7a/lzD5rhs45CRmu uMRK5VrRpCQoyNIDg0rBITQWX4HGd5KnjU+6zDkX4QSJrFg4+f73IhJOEMzwq6di pXXfuUdKU/ubu34o6pRCvvPizgwvqLNh9ZfJhi6NlVv2wpWjP4lQJdNl6yUyqNkv lktKk5YkZrR3sOmiQSkEck1RGi981JGYHLFg3gT3YRgXPAEhrqu3yFtaM6mwlBTk 8g/WeswloZLWC2dirkzZSrsNVZgVg==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:d3cUYCB0h_T7XfKnQZgETXCZESK7wapXh8GzmnbHEzPgPW4jTO-GqA> <xme:d3cUYMhNd-W2j680IRvwtOowyhemYEAZ_oTOGoQA2of2y9Q58bRnwNqP2XDXgVUIw WNJ3Bt9H-Of2DdtiA>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduledrfedvgddugeehucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhepuffvfhfhohfkffgfgggjtgfgsehtjeertddtfeejnecuhfhrohhmpeffrghv vgcuvehrohgtkhgvrhcuoegutghrohgtkhgvrhessggsihifrdhnvghtqeenucggtffrrg htthgvrhhnpeeihfdvuefgjeekffdthfelveelteevfeegteefgeetjeejudejueegheef hefgieenucffohhmrghinhepsggsihifrdhnvghtnecukfhppedutdekrddvvdeirdduie dvrdeifeenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhm pegutghrohgtkhgvrhessggsihifrdhnvght
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:d3cUYFkmbv8xxagJFdx62NXnusxsBI_z7RFSHWKNqYnB2gedDZfTdQ> <xmx:d3cUYAy2SYXrANopyS9I5I01r8pBpPawXMfTx-Vo9cfzUswYhTldnA> <xmx:d3cUYHQPRXE_qR2ZuW74pIWx_UPW4u6c2hjnBHTekzJqlgSclE0KcQ> <xmx:eHcUYKNxXJNzwemMc3at6YdmT3s8rN3z9TAJNkWCWP2fRazJrU9Giw>
Received: from [192.168.0.109] (108-226-162-63.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net [108.226.162.63]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id DB0DF240062; Fri, 29 Jan 2021 16:00:38 -0500 (EST)
To: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>, last-call@ietf.org
References: <20210129205331.1FC026CF220E@ary.qy>
From: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
Message-ID: <7cec412e-b982-d11b-e598-3c7e54513e56@bbiw.net>
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2021 13:00:37 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20210129205331.1FC026CF220E@ary.qy>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/last-call/M7GaiuPe79WjMlcfr-iycIiFXlk>
Subject: Re: [Last-Call] Genart last call review of draft-crocker-inreply-react-07
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: Fri, 29 Jan 2021 21:00:43 -0000

On 1/29/2021 12:53 PM, John Levine wrote:
> In article <aae001e4-e69b-408d-1e76-871d2d3cd941@bbiw.net> you write:
>>> Probably, but I think it bears saying something about how to handle
>>> code points without the Emoji property set.  IMHO they should be
>>> handled as undisplayable.
>>
>> This steps into user interface design, more than interoperable emoji
>> labeling and transport.
>>
>> As such, it's outside of this specification and outside of the IETF's
>> expertise.
> 
> The Unicode consortium adds new emoji and combinations several times a
> year, so depending on how often people update their software it is
> common for a sender's and a recipient's systems to disagree about what
> are valid emoji. This is not a tarpit we need to step in.


The language is intended to cover this sort of version mismatch, without 
saying anything about the UI aspects of how it's dealt with, beyond 
recommending that the site do whatever it normally does with Unicode it 
does not current understand.

d/


-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email