To me clear, my motivations with regard to Section 7 are different from those associated with issues in the rest of the document. For the others, my goal was to make the document accurately reflect what the document was intended to specify. I believe that people being surprised that...
Especially given our community tendency towards bikeshedding, there is a particular danger in trying to add narrow refinement to a list of questions in a section intended to get feedback about an experiment.
The questions need to be meaningful, of course, but this is
really a survey instrument and these are difficult to do well. In
the absence of careful design, strong controls, and expertise in
the black art of survey methodology, keeping these profoundly
simple and simplistic is essential.
In engineering, we are taught to be careful about false precision. 10.1 * 10.1 is 102.0, not 102.01. Survey research has more complex and subtle versions of the same concern that it is easy to produce a misleading and inaccurate sense of precision claimed or implied.
Note that the sampling methodology for these question does not have any relationship to an actual experiment, and therefore neither do the responses. So really, we are only asking a variation of "Tell us about using the specification."
Having reflected a bit about this, this morning, I now think it
reasonable to add a bit more, but not really of the sort that has
been discussed.
Here's what I propose:
7. Experimental Goals
The basic, email-specific mechanics for this capability are well-established and well-understood. Points of concern, therefore, are:
- Technical issues in using emojis within a message body part
- Market interest
- Usability
So the questions to answer for this Experimental specification are:
- Is there demonstrated interest by MUA developers?
- If MUA developers add this capability, is it used by authors?
- Does the presence of the Reaction capability create any operational problems for recipients?
- Does the presence of the Reaction capability demonstrate additional security issues?
- What specific changes to the specification are needed?
- What other comments will aid in use of this mechanism?
Please send comments to ietf-822@xxxxxxxx.
d/
-- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
