Subject: [Last-Call] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-crocker-inreply-react-10.txt

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2021 08:32:44 -0800

Diff: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-crocker-inreply-react-10

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: New Version Notification for draft-crocker-inreply-react-10.txt
Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2021 08:28:51 -0800
From: [email-masked]
To: R. Signes <[email-masked]>, Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>, 
Ned Freed <[email-masked]>, Ricardo Signes <[email-masked]>

A new version of I-D, draft-crocker-inreply-react-10.txt
has been successfully submitted by Dave Crocker and posted to the
IETF repository.

Name:		draft-crocker-inreply-react
Revision:	10
Title:		Reaction: Indicating Summary Reaction to a Message
Document date:	2021-03-08
Group:		Individual Submission
Pages:		9
URL: 
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-crocker-inreply-react-10.txt
Status: 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-crocker-inreply-react/
Htmlized: 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-crocker-inreply-react
Htmlized:       https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-crocker-inreply-react-10
Diff: 
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-crocker-inreply-react-10

Abstract:
    The popularity of social media has led to user comfort with easily
    signaling basic reactions to an author's posting, such as with a
    'thumbs up' or 'smiley' graphic.  This specification permits a
    similar facility for Internet Mail.

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

The IETF Secretariat

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net

---

From: Kjetil Torgrim Homme <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2021 22:27:21 +0100

> Diff: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-crocker-inreply-react-10

Thanks a lot, Dave!  All my concerns are handled by the new version.

-- 
venleg helsing,
Kjetil T.

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2021 13:30:47 -0800

> Thanks a lot, Dave!  All my concerns are handled by the new version.

whew.

(It was oddly interesting, trying to figure out what was causing this 
confusion.  As usual, going for simplifying the text helped.)

d/

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2021 09:21:28 -0800

> Diff: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-crocker-inreply-react-10

Are there any significant concerns that this version does not resolve?

If so, please explain how their resolution is essential to the utility 
of this document.

d/

---

From: Martin J. Dürst <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2021 09:45:28 +0900

I quickly looked at draft-crocker-inreply-react-11 (actually at the 
diffs between that and -10).

Just a nit:

In
	   The unicode character, represented here as "{U+1F44E}" for	
    readability, would actually be sent as the UTF-8-encoded character.

definitely 'unicode' should be capitalized. This is the only occasion 
where 'unicode' appears in lower case except for an URI, where lower 
case is what you want.

(It would have been great if this draft used actual Unicode; it's 
exactly the kind of draft for which all the work on allowing full 
Unicode in RFCs was done.)

Regards,   Martin.

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2021 16:49:14 -0800

> where 'unicode' appears in lower case except for an URI, where lower 

good catch (though the RFC Editor editors are pretty darn reliable, it 
can't hurt to lessen their load...) Next version is duly enhanced.

> Unicode in RFCs was done.)

If it were essential, I suppose, but I remain an advocate for doing RFCs 
in net-ASCII, for maximum, ummmm... interoperability.

d/

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2021 19:16:46 -0500

--On Wednesday, March 10, 2021 09:21 -0800 Dave Crocker
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> If so, please explain how their resolution is essential to the
> utility of this document.

Dave,

I noticed in comparing -08 and -09 with -10 that you had added
an acknowledgment for Ben, but not for Patrik, Martin, or
myself, each of whose comments appear to have motivated changes
as large or larger than Ben's.   Given the requirement of
Section 5.6(a) of RFC 5378 / BCP 78 as well as what I have
understood to be the principle of being generous about
acknowledgement, may I reasonably assume that was an oversight
rather than a deliberate omission?

thanks,
   john