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

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

Just on the point at the end:

Discussion of the text of this document belongs on the last-call list.
Discussion, later, of how the experiment went and whether we should move to
Proposed Standard with a revised version doesn’t, and I think putting that
back on the rfc822 list is the right approach.  If that leads to a PS
version, we’ll either put it into a working group or point both the
community and the IESG to that list to review/participate i the discussion.

Barry

On Wed, Mar 3, 2021 at 4:23 PM John C Klensin <[e-mail]> wrote:

> --On Wednesday, 03 March, 2021 10:28 -0800 Dave Crocker
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> >...
> > Having reflected a bit about this, this morning, I now think
> > it reasonable to add a bit more, but not really of the sort
> > that has been discussed.
>
> > Here's what I propose:
>
> >>   7. Experimental Goals
> >>
> >> The basic, email-specific mechanics for this capability are
> >> well-established and well-understood. Points of concern,
> >> therefore, are:
> >>
> >>   * Technical issues in using emojis within a message body
> >>   part
> >>   * Market interest
> >>   * Usability
>
> This is a question, not a request for change, but isn't the
> questions of whether a new Content-disposition value will be
> accepted and whether implementations will handle an unrecognized
> value in a a reasonable way an inherent part of this experiment
> and hence a point of concern?
>
> >> So the questions to answer for this Experimental
> >> specification are:
> >>
> >>   * Is there demonstrated interest by MUA developers?
> >>   * If MUA developers add this capability, is it used by
> >>      authors?
> >>   * Does the presence of the Reaction capability
> >>      create any operational problems for recipients?
> >>   * Does the presence of the Reaction capability demonstrate
> >>     additional security issues?
> >>   * What specific changes to the specification are needed?
> >>   * What other comments will aid in use of this mechanism?
>
> That formulation works for me.
>
> >> Please send comments to [e-mail].
>
> Up to Barry but, if this discussion is considered part of a Last
> Call and IESG review in progress, should it not remain on this
> list so that, among other things, the IESG sees it?
>
> thanks,
>    john
>
>
>
>
>
>