Re: [ietf-822] New Version Notification for draft-crocker-inreply-react-00.txt
On 15 Sep 2020, at 10:59, Dave Crocker wrote:
On 9/15/2020 5:21 AM, Pete Resnick wrote:
Someone asked me about this feature some years ago when social media
was becoming popular and I suggested simply adding a disposition to
Message Disposition Notification (RFC 8098, STD 85). The machinery is
already in some systems, MDNs give you the ability to easily get back
to the source message through Message-ID,
So does normal reply functions.
Most, though I know of several clients (web-based and mobile) that don't
do In-Reply-To and References correctly. That said, those likely don't
support MDN either, there's going to have to be some UI added to get
this useful, so it is probably a wash.
How does the person who is reacting also add a comment or extended
text or..., if they want to?
In the body of the message. Remember, MDNs are multipart/report. If you
look in the examples in 8098 you'll see a text part (normally presented
to the user as a normal message) followed by the
message/disposition-notification part which contains the details of the
original message and a "Disposition", which in this case could contain
"reaction", and some additional information indicating the type of
No new mechanism needed and I think somewhat quicker deployment. It
would probably just take an Informational document with a pointer to
I think that if you break down the implementation details carefully,
you'll find that the effort for my proposal and the effort for yours
will be about the same. They sit on top of different 'interfaces, but
the effort to add to them probably isn't very different.
That's probably true. Either way, you'd want a bit of new UI on both
ends too. I know some clients already have UI for pushing the "I read
this" button and generate an MDN in response. Changing that to a
drop-down list of reactions and adding a different disposition parameter
seems pretty straightforward.
Except that your proposal adds a capability that has less flexibility.
Actually, I think quite the opposite. You get the comment or extended
text, plus a lot more flexibility to add different sorts of parameters
into the message/disposition-notification part.
On 9/15/2020 5:25 AM, Pete Resnick wrote:
One of the nice things about an environment that intends to evaluate
proposals on their merits, rather than, say, their politics, is that
the source of the proposal shouldn't matter. So I'm not clear what
difference the answer should make or why you are asking.
Was this a specific ask (as in someone wants to implement something
like this), does someone have code to do this already, or is this
just an idea for new functionality?
Oh, I definitely wasn't interested in the politics. I was asking to see
if there was already pre-deployment of the mechanism, which might lean
toward continuing down that code path instead of doing new engineering
on current MDN codebases, or if it fit very well in an existing code
base, where something like MDN wouldn't. That would make a difference,
In any event, the proposal was motivated by my finding myself
constantly wishing I could make a quick response to an email the same
way I can to a social networking posting, and feeling unhappy that I
can't just click on a smiley (though my own tendency is more often to
click on the crying emoticon, these days.) I think the mechanism has
become an extremely efficient way to give very basic responses. I'd
like email to permit that efficiency.
Yep, I think, whichever mechanism is used, the functionality would be a
nice little addition.
I can try to write up a quick draft of using MDN to compare and
Pete Resnick https://www.episteme.net/
All connections to the world are tenuous at best
ietf-822 mailing list