--On Wednesday, 03 March, 2021 10:28 -0800 Dave Crocker <dcrocker@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >... > 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 This is a question, not a request for change, but isn't the questions of whether a new Content-disposition value will be accepted and whether implementations will handle an unrecognized value in a a reasonable way an inherent part of this experiment and hence a point of concern? >> 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? That formulation works for me. >> Please send comments to ietf-822@xxxxxxxx. Up to Barry but, if this discussion is considered part of a Last Call and IESG review in progress, should it not remain on this list so that, among other things, the IESG sees it? thanks, john -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
