To: "'Keith Moore'" <moore@cs.utk.edu>, Robert Elz <kre@munnari.OZ.AU>
Cc: Jacob Palme <jpalme@dsv.su.se>,
        IETF working group on revision of mail standards <drums@cs.utk.edu>
Subject: RE: Consensus possible on new reply headers? 
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 17:03:50 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
From: "Woodhouse, Gregory J." <gregory.woodhouse@mail.va.gov>
Message-ID: <2107E82D78C2D1118A340000F8033450BFF9@mail.va.gov>

It seems to me like there is a basic difference between specifying a UI
and specifying actions to be accomplished through the UI. For example, I
absolutely that we shouldn't say that a UI should provide two (or three)
reply buttons, but perhaps we have no choice but to say that a UA (note
the change in acronym) should implement an action called REPLY-1 with a
given set of semantics and perhaps another one called REPLY-2 with
another set of semantics. How the user should indicate that those
actions are to be performed is another matter. Naturally, similar
comments would apply to a UA that is only used programmatically (e.g.,
the resolver libary in BIND).

I agree that an implementation advice section would be useful, and I
also agree that it should be placed in an appendix, but I don't think
specifying a basic set of actions to be accomplished through the UI (or
an API) is implementation advice of this sort. Speciying the GUI (e.g.,
here should be two reply buttons, etc.) would be implementation advice
and should be avoided.
===
Gregory Woodhouse
San Francisco CIO Field Office - Infrastructure
Gregory.Woodhouse@med.va.gov
+1 415 744 6362


> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Keith Moore [SMTP:moore@cs.utk.edu]
> Sent:	Tuesday, April 14, 1998 2:05 PM
> To:	Robert Elz
> Cc:	Jacob Palme; IETF working group on revision of mail standards;
> moore@cs.utk.edu
> Subject:	Re: Consensus possible on new reply headers? 
> 
> personally, I'd like to see UA implementation advice - including
> advice about user interfaces - to go in an appendix of whatever
> document defines new reply headers.  But none of this is apropos
> of the DRUMS work.