Network Working Group D. Crocker
Internet-Draft Brandenburg InternetWorking
Intended status: Informational R. Signes
Expires: April 19, 2021 Semiotic Systems
October 16, 2020
React: Indicating Summary Reaction to a Message
draft-crocker-inreply-react-02
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 indication. This specification
permits a similar facility for Internet Mail.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 19, 2021.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Crocker & Signes Expires April 19, 2021 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft react October 2020
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. In-Reply-React . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Usability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Appendix A. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1. Introduction
The popularity of social media has led to user comfort with easily
signaling summary reactions to an author's posting, by marking basic
emoji graphics, such as with a 'thumbs up', 'heart', or 'smiley'
indication. Sometimes the permitted repertoire is constrained to a
small set and sometimes a more extensive range of indicators is
supported.
This specification defines a similar facility for Internet Mail.
While it is already possible to include symbols and graphics as part
of an email reply's content, there has not been an established means
of signalling the semantic substance that such data are to be taken
as a summary 'reaction' to the original message. That is, a
mechanism to identify symbols as specifically providing a summary
reaction to the cited message, rather than merely being part of the
free text in the body of a response. Such a structured use of the
symbol(s) allows recipient MUAs to correlate this reaction to the
original message and possibly to display the information
distinctively.
This facility defines a header field, to be used in junction with the
In-Reply-To header field, to link one or more emojis as a summary
reaction to a previous message.
Unless provided here, terminology, architecture and specification
used in this document are incorporated from [Mail-Arch], [Mail-Fmt]
and [ABNF]. The ABNF rule Emoji-Seq is inherited from [Emoji-Seq].
Discussion of this specification should take place on the ietf-
822@ietf.org mailing list.
Crocker & Signes Expires April 19, 2021 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft react October 2020
2. In-Reply-React
A message sent as a reply MAY indicate the responder's summary
reaction to the original message by including an In-Reply-React
header field:
The [ABNF] for the header field is:
in-reply-react = "In-Reply-React:" emoji *(lwsp emoji) CRLF
emoji = emoji_sequence
emoji_sequence = { defined in [Emoji-Seq] }
base-emojis = thumbs-up / thumbs-down / grinning-face / frowning-face / crying-face
thumbs-up = {U+1F44D}
thumbs-down = {U+1F44E}
grinning-face = {U+1F600}
frowning-face = {U+2639}
crying-face = {U+1F622}
The rule emoji_sequence is inherited from [Emoji-Seq]. It permits
one or more bytes to form a single presentation image.
The emoji(s) express a recipient's summary reaction to the specific
message referenced by the accompanying In-Reply-To header field.
[Mail-Fmt].
Fully interoperable email uses 7-bit ASCII, although some email
handling paths directly support 8-bit data. Emoji characters are
drawn from the space outside of 7-bit ASCII. For email handling
paths that are 8-bit clean, the an emoji character does not need
special encoding. If the path from author to recipients is not known
to be 8-bit clean, The emoji character SHOULD be encoded using
[MIME-Enc].
Reference to unallocated code points SHOULD NOT be treated as an
error; associated bytes SHOULD be processed using the system default
method for denoting an unallocated or undisplayable code point.
For recipient MUAs that do not support this mechanism, the header
field might not be displayed to the recipient. To ensure that the
reaction is presented to the recipient, the responding MUA MAY
automatically include a second copy of the header field in the
message body. This might be as the first line of the body or as the
first mime-part. [MIME] By making the text be the full header field,
Crocker & Signes Expires April 19, 2021 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft react October 2020
it also allows MUAs that do support the mechanism to identify this
redundant information and possibly remove it from display.
3. Usability Considerations
This specification defines a mechanism for the structuring and
carriage of information. It does not define any user-level details
of use. However the design of the user-level mechanisms associated
with this facility is paramount. This section discusses some issues
to consider .
Creation: Because an email environment is different from a typical
social media platform, there are choices in the design of the user
interface, to support indication of a reaction. Is the reaction
to be sent only to the original author, or should it be sent to
all recipients? Should the reaction always be sent in a discrete
message containing only the reaction, or should the user also be
able to include other message content? (Note that carriage of the
reaction in a normal email message enables inclusion of this other
content.)
Display: Reaction indications might be more useful when displayed in
close visual proximity to the original message, rather than merely
as part of an email response thread.
4. Security Considerations
This specification defines a distinct location for specialized
message content. Processing that handles the content differently
from content in the message body might introduce vulnerabilities.
However the mere definition or use of this mechanism does not create
new vulnerabilities.
5. IANA Considerations
Add to "Permanent Message Header Field Registry":
Header field name: In-Reply-React
Applicable protocol: Mail (RFC 2822)
Status: Experimental
Author/Change controller: IETF
Specification document(s): This specification.
Crocker & Signes Expires April 19, 2021 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft react October 2020
Related information: None
6. References
6.1. Normative References
[ABNF] Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
Specifications: ABNF", RFC 5234, January 2008.
[Emoji-Seq]
Davis, M., Ed. and P. Edberg., Ed., "Unicode(R) Technical
Standard #51: Unicode Emoji", WEB
http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr51/#def_emoji_sequence,
September 2020.
[Mail-Arch]
Crocker, D., "Internet Mail Architecture", RFC 5598, July
2009.
[Mail-Fmt]
Resnick, P., Ed., "Internet Message Format", RFC 5322,
October 2008.
[MIME-Enc]
Moore, K., "MIME (Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions)
Part Three: Message Header Extensions for Non-ASCII Text",
RFC 2047, November 1996.
6.2. Informative References
[MIME] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message
Bodies", RFC 2045, November 1996.
Appendix A. Acknowledgements
This specification has been discussed in the ietf-822 mailing list.
Active commentary and suggestions were offered by: Nathaniel
Borenstein, Richard Clayton, Ned Freed, Bron Gondwana, Valdis
Klētnieks, John Levine, Brandon Long, Keith Moore, Pete Resnick,
Michael Richardson, Alessandro Vesely
Authors' Addresses
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
Email: dcrocker@bbiw.net
Crocker & Signes Expires April 19, 2021 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft react October 2020
R. Signes
Semiotic Systems
Email: rjbs@semiotic.systems
Crocker & Signes Expires April 19, 2021 [Page 6]