Sorry, I had taken that "please discuss on" comment as referring
to discussion of the proposed text for the draft and not as part
of that text.
My error and sorry for adding to the confusion and noise.
john
--On Wednesday, 03 March, 2021 16:30 -0500 Barry Leiba
<barryleiba@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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
