Dave Crocker <dcrocker@xxxxxxxx> writes: > I suppose a clarification could be added along the lines of: > > OLD: > The emoji(s) express a recipient's summary reaction to the specific > message referenced by the accompanying In-Reply-To header field. > [Mail-Fmt]. > > NEW: > The emoji(s) express a recipient's summary reaction to the specific > message referenced by the accompanying In-Reply-To header field, for > the message in which they both are present. [Mail-Fmt]. > > If a message is nested within a message, that defines a hard reference > boundary. Something inside the nested message does not refer to the > containing message, for example. After sending my previous message, I realized that I had gone to length explaining why I considered the term "accompanying" to be ill-defined, but I had forgotten to mention that in my review, I'd added "Or perhaps this should be forward-referenced to the discussion in section 3." Just adding a reference to section 3 would clarify it, because section 3 covers the matter well. Another version that would be good is "The emoji(s) express a recipient's summary reaction to the specific message referenced by the In-Reply-To header field of the message in which it is present." Dale -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
