| RFC 0000 | reaction | June 2021 |
| Crocker, et al. | Experimental | [Page] |
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.¶
This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for examination, experimental implementation, and evaluation.¶
This document defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet community. This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has received public review and has been approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Not all documents approved by the IESG are candidates for any level of Internet Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 7841.¶
Information about the current status of this document, any errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc0000.¶
Copyright (c) 2021 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.¶
The popularity of social media has led to user comfort with easily signaling summary reactions to an author's posting, by using 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 extends this existing practice in social media and instant messaging into 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 new MIME Content-Disposition, to be used in conjunction with the In-Reply-To header field, to specify that a part of a message containing one or more emojis can be be treated as a summary reaction to a previous message.¶
Unless provided here, terminology, architecture, and specification notation used in this document are incorporated from¶
Syntax is specified with¶
The ABNF rule Emoji-Seq is inherited from [Emoji-Seq]; details are in Section 3.¶
Normative language, per [RFC8174]:¶
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.¶
A message sent as a reply MAY include a part containing:¶
Content-Disposition: reaction¶
If such a field is specified the Content-Type of the part MUST be:¶
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8¶
The content of this part is restricted to a single line of emoji. The [ABNF] is:¶
part-content = emoji *(WSP 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 part-content is either the entire content portion of a message's single MIME body or it is the content portion of the first MIME multi-part body-part that constitute a message's body.¶
The ABNF rule emoji_sequence is inherited from [Emoji-Seq]. It defines a set of Unicode code point sequences, which must then be encoded as UTF-8. Each sequence forms a single pictograph. The BNF syntax used in [Emoji-Seq] differs from [ABNF], and MUST be interpreted as used in Unicode documentation. The referenced document describes these as sequences of code points.¶
The rule base-emojis is provided as a simple, common list, or 'vocabulary' of emojis, It was developed from some existing practice, in social networking, and is intended for similar use. However support for it as a base vocabulary is not required. Having providers and consumers employ a common set will facilitate user interoperability, but different sets of users might want to have different, common (shared) sets.¶
The reaction emoji(s) are linked to the current message's In-Reply-To: field, which references an earlier message, and provides a summary reaction to that earlier message. [Mail-Fmt]. For processing details, see Section 4.¶
Reference to unallocated code points SHOULD NOT be treated as an error; the corresponding UTF-8 encoded code points SHOULD be processed using the system default method for denoting an unallocated or undisplayable code point.¶
The presentation aspects of reaction processing are necessarily MUA-specific and beyond the scope of this specification. In terms of the message itself, a recipient MUA that supports this mechanism operates as follows:¶
Again, the handling of a message that has been successfully processed is MUA-specific and beyond the scope of this specification.¶
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.¶
A simple message exchange might be:¶
To: recipient@example.com From: author@example.com Date: Today, 29 February 2021 00:00:00 -800 Message-id: 12345@example.com Subject: Meeting Can we chat at 1pm pacific, today?¶
with a thumbs-up, affirmative response of:¶
To: author@example.com From: recipient@example.org Date: Today, 29 February 2021 00:00:10 -800 Message-id: 56789@example.org In-Reply-To: 12345@example.com Subject: Meeting Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: Reaction 👍¶
The Unicode character U+1F44D ("👍", THUMBS UP SIGN) would actually be sent as the UTF-8-encoded character.¶
The example could, of course, be more elaborate, such as the first of a MIME multipart sequence.¶
Repeating the caution that actual use of this capability requires careful usability design and testing, this section describes simple examples -- which have not been tested -- of how the reaction response might be displayed in a summary list of messages :¶
This specification employs message content that is a strict subset of existing possible content, and thus introduces no new content-specific security considerations. The fact that this content is structured might seem to make it a new threat surface, but there is no analysis demonstrating that it does.¶
This specification defines a distinct Content-Disposition value, for specialized message content. Processing that handles the content differently from other content in the message body might introduce vulnerabilities. Since this capability is likely to produce new user interaction features, that might also produce new social engineering vulnerabilities.¶
The IANA is requested to register the Reaction MIME Content-Disposition parameter, per [RFC2183]¶
The basic, email-specific mechanics for this capability are well-established and well-understood. Points of concern, therefore, are:¶
So the questions to answer for this Experimental specification are:¶
Please send comments to ietf-822@ietf.org.¶
This specification had substantive commentary on three IETF mailing lists.¶
This work began as a private exercise, in July 2020, with private discussion, for draft-crocker-reply-emoji. It morphed into draft-crocker-inreply-react, with significant discussion on the ietf-822 mailing list, September through November 2020. The discussion produced a fundamental change from proposing a new header field to instead defining a new Content-Disposition type, as well as significantly enhancing its text concerning Unicode. It also produced two additional co-authors.¶
In November 2020, the Dispatch list was queried about the draft, but produced no discussion, though it did garner one statement of interest.¶
A 4-week Last Call was issued on the document, January 2021, resulting in quite a bit of fresh discussion on the last-call mailing list, and producing further changes to the draft. After Last Call completed, additional concerns were surfaced, about the Unicode-related details, producing yet more changes to the draft. It also produced a challenge that prompted the current version of the Acknowledgements section.¶
Readers who are interested in the detail of the document's history are encouraged to peruse the archives for the three lists, searching Subject fields for "-react".¶