IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> Fri, 26 February 2021 22:54 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 3208B3A0D6A for <last-call@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Feb 2021 14:54:18 -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=rb70UQHR; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=rXXJ5wI4
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 1xsCUsCG3IB8 for <last-call@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Feb 2021 14:54:16 -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 A41DE3A1257 for <last-call@ietf.org>; Fri, 26 Feb 2021 14:54:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 32665 invoked from network); 26 Feb 2021 22:54:15 -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=7f95.60397c17.k2102; bh=QjpVc8Vh+2nf9X9gP28c/ajIqubNBsO1Ia8Mb/Mwvbc=; b=rb70UQHRxKhYsp6wegCkQO0cx+bRr7ttjuk9HLQ3kD1npk8Jer0pZ1n96JVLMy9rzCDFCLCTUGE4FplIidVf/HZ30rUCppmWL2Tf3ZIgmBlcwL6KA1MlSU3011yEExU0HSr9bADq4W65Sam9ikX580q05WF6JGUNHhcUFneWmjkBGMJUriR9sGQtUuEw7FrbXfAZMld8mvEhQ1XNaEaneO38O4cX2rSOfb0ES7Jrm9hydmPdViz7TSntp83c4qzbioTObsTsigJO9julJZ+HVnvZTBbG/OB7M1xYdGel8WZT0RipLh6DZQU00X6BfvcIgTWNWxG85tnuFIgXUFFwkg==
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=7f95.60397c17.k2102; bh=QjpVc8Vh+2nf9X9gP28c/ajIqubNBsO1Ia8Mb/Mwvbc=; b=rXXJ5wI4ehLgY8Wxvm5EtmQy6dPKB3iFjDZkk9JrAxVHDmmepHxLPp3EDMurUFtq7NvKQC14hX6EietNW8dFNanNmdS+LunXGGyJgZdf776REZQZuYDnJUlthX+uoO3llsHVZmyj5pxwuIxZNR033Os4JsQC0X1mothkBhVhqQPGJn75Iv72NtYmK9s9fckgBoKifoq7CqLoNFI33QPCT5kubGPlkStkKUKk7gWkn+gMaaK0sQtm7BDLiGPyrG3XP5gcXa9pS7T9d0zefUrLVlBm/JC68S7GmsmUY1yLwNJhbf9/Z8Beo+5ff7vADHPNEHoF/UOEslrFKONLnshlhQ==
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; 26 Feb 2021 22:54:14 -0000
Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id EC3EA6EF3ACB; Fri, 26 Feb 2021 17:54:13 -0500 (EST)
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2021 17:54:13 -0500
Message-Id: <20210226225413.EC3EA6EF3ACB@ary.qy>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: last-call@ietf.org
Cc: dcrocker@bbiw.net
In-Reply-To: <e324f2c4-923c-e1a1-1df4-c65993835f08@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/mZTM5L5ppcMPpKX9NxvU38KRoWM>
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: Fri, 26 Feb 2021 22:54:18 -0000

In article <e324f2c4-923c-e1a1-1df4-c65993835f08@bbiw.net> you write:
>-=-=-=-=-=-
>
>John,
>
>On 2/25/2021 9:30 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
>>> This is not like the use of non-ASCII characters in domain
>>> names, because reactions are not used as resource locators.
>>> If a visually confusable emoji is used to replace another, the
>>> reader is not misled into arriving at the wrong resource.
>> No, but the user may be misled.
>
>And they may not.

In every reaction scheme I've seen, from Twitter to Zoom to Slack, you
pick a reaction, and it sends what you told it to send. It's up to the
user sending the reaction to anticipate what the other party will
think of it.

I cannot imagine why we would make this any different.  Send what the
user says to send.

At this point I don't see any compelling reason to limit the reactions
to Unicode emoji and exclude text reactions like :-(

R's,
John

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email