Just on the point at the end:
Discussion of the text of this document belongs on the last-call list. Discussion, later, of how the experiment went and whether we should move to Proposed Standard with a revised version doesn’t, and I think putting that back on the rfc822 list is the right approach. If that leads to a PS version, we’ll either put it into a working group or point both the community and the IESG to that list to review/participate i the discussion.
Barry
On Wed, Mar 3, 2021 at 4:23 PM John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote:
--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
