Dale, thanks for your review. Dave, all, thanks for your responses. It looks like the issues are close to cleared up. I entered a No Objection ballot. Alissa > On Feb 10, 2021, at 8:30 AM, Dave Crocker <dcrocker@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 2/8/2021 7:42 PM, Dale R. Worley wrote: >> 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." > > > Here's the latest version: > > 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]. For processing details, see Section 3. > > > > d/ > -- > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg InternetWorking > bbiw.net > > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > Gen-art@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
