A web-based MUA is still an MUA, n'est-ce pas?
Barry
On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 12:04 PM tom petch <daedulus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> On 16/01/2021 21:53, Barry Leiba wrote:
> > On the process issue, the reason for Experimental is that we don’t know the
> > practical aspects of implementing this in MUAs and having users actually
> > use them, both in sending reactions and in viewing the reactions we get
> > back. I’m very pleased that this document actually contains Section 7,
> > which describes what the experiment needs to answer (thanks, Dave!), and
> > wish all Experimental drafts did that.
> >
> > Given the uncertainty about when this is actually practical, but the
> > necessity of having a standard protocol to try in order to find out, I
> > think Experimental is the right approach.
>
> The question that comes to my mind is; does the MUA still exist?
>
> My MUA was largely eliminated by my ESP over a year ago and while a
> search revealed many possible replacements, almost all of them ceased
> development many years ago. Rather we are now in a world of social
> media and web.
>
> Obviously the concept in this I-D is integral with social media but what
> happens with web mail? I know that the mantra of the IETF is to avoid
> user interfaces when at all possible but it seems to me that this is a
> case where it should not be avoided. At the same time, I find most
> aspects of the web inimical to working over e-mail so struggle to see
> where this would fit in without making things worse.
>
> Tom Petch
>
> > Barry
> >
> > On Sat, Jan 16, 2021 at 4:28 PM Eliot Lear <lear@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >> IMHO Email has been missing these reactions for years, and this is a great
> >> idea. I have several comments about the text, and one process comment.
> >> Let me start with the latter: was there a discussion about whether to make
> >> this PS rather than experimental? I see one really substantial issue with
> >> the draft that isn’t discussed, but I don’t know that it is insurmountable
> >> (discussed below).
> >>
> >> On the text, one issue in Section 2, in the ABNF:
> >>
> >> part-content = emoji *(lwsp emoji) CRLF
> >>
> >> emoji = emoji_sequence
> >> emoji_sequence = { defined in [Emoji-Seq] }
> >>
> >> base-emojis = thumbs-up / thumbs-down / grinning-face / frowning-face / crying-face
> >>
> >> thumbs-up = {U+1F44D}
> >> thumbs-down = {U+1F44E}
> >> grinning-face = {U+1F600}
> >> frowning-face = {U+2639}
> >> crying-face = {U+1F622}
> >>
> >> I don’t understand where base-emojis are used. Was “emoji" meant to be "emoji_sequence / base-emojis”?
> >>
> >> In Security Considerations in Section 5, I think it’s probably useful to talk about the risk of spoofed messages creating spoofed reactions, perhaps a lot of them. What mitigation techniques should be employed? One might be to look for a valid Authentication-Results header.
> >>
> >> Finally, what happens if the same source sends two reactions in two separate emails? Can one send a blank message to remove a reaction?
> >>
> >>
> >> In Section 3, one nit:
> >>
> >> ...
> >>
> >> 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.
> >>
> >> 2. If R's In-Reply-To: does reference one, then check R's message
> >> content for a part with a "reaction" content-disposition at
> >> either the outermost level or as part of a multipart at the
> >> outermost level.
> >>
> >> As “R” is only ever referenced here, my suggestion is to either lose the variable, or to refer to the other message with a variable, for consistency.
> >>
> >> Again, thanks for the draft, and I look forward to its approval, preferably as a PS ;-)
> >>
> >> Eliot
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 16 Jan 2021, at 02:14, The IESG <iesg-secretary@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
> >> the
> >> following document: - 'React: Indicating Summary Reaction to a Message'
> >> <draft-crocker-inreply-react-06.txt> as Experimental RFC
> >>
> >> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
> >> comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
> >> last-call@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by 2021-02-12. Exceptionally, comments
> >> may
> >> be sent to iesg@xxxxxxxx instead. In either case, please retain the
> >> beginning
> >> of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
> >>
> >> Abstract
> >>
> >>
> >> The popularity of social media has led to user comfort with easily
> >> signaling basic reactions to an author's posting, such as with a
> >> 'thumbs up' or 'smiley' graphic. This specification permits a
> >> similar facility for Internet Mail.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> The file can be obtained via
> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-crocker-inreply-react/
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> IETF-Announce mailing list
> >> IETF-Announce@xxxxxxxx
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
--
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
