Thank you very much, Dave, for pointing me at the exact discussion of
this topic.
I think Ned's analysis was excellent. I wonder about the conclusion
that a mechanism where some (upgraded) email thread participants see
each other's reactions and (non-upgraded) others don't is worse than a
mechanism that ties reaction to replies. For example, if something such
as message disposition were to be extended for reactions, would that be
worse than the non-reply reply?
--Randall
On 2 Mar 2021, at 19:23, Dave Crocker wrote:
On 3/2/2021 4:17 PM, Randall Gellens wrote:
I'm just curious why the choice for a reaction to be a body part
rather than an attribute on the In-Reply-To header field?
Randy,
This was a matter of significant discussion on the ietf-822 list, and
the current draft is fundamentally different from my original
submission, as a result of that discussion. My original spec was
problematic in a number of ways, some of which had been an itch in my
brain that I hadn't adequately perceived.
The decisive "I could have had a V8" moment came with Ned's posting on
21 Oct (6:43am, by my MUA) titled: "Review of and suggested changes
for draft-crocker-inreply-react-01.txt".
Really, it my reaction(...) was that this was m u c h better
than what I'd designed.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
--
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
