On 2 Mar 2021, at 20:29, Dave Crocker wrote:
On 3/2/2021 8:23 PM, Randall Gellens wrote:
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.
That's one of the reasons this design is superior to my original. The
original would typically suffer the inequity you describe. The
current one out to result in everyone have the images appear (assuming
any ability to process emojis) but some would not have them specially
process as been in reply.
For example, if something such as message disposition were to be
extended for reactions, would that be worse than the non-reply reply?
not sure what you mean.
I was making a comparison to the message disposition mechanism (RFC
8098), where a message includes a Disposition-Notification-To header
field soliciting disposition notifications, and recipients of that
message may choose to send bodies of type "multipart/report;
report-type=disposition-notification" containing a
"message/disposition-notification" body part that indicates the action
taken on the message (i.e., displayed, deleted, dispatched, processed).
While this specific facility isn't used much in the open Internet due to
privacy concerns, the general mechanism seems like it might be a close
fit for a reaction mechanism. It's a mechanism for sending
meta-information about a message, not a reply.
Since I hadn't seen this draft before (entirely my fault), I was curious
if there was consideration given to extending this mechanism or using a
similar mechanism, where reactions are sent in a way that they aren't
confusable with replies.
--Randall
--
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
