[Slim] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-slim-multilangcontent-13: (with COMMENT)

[Adam Roach <[e-mail]>]

Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-slim-multilangcontent-13: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-slim-multilangcontent/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I note that this mechanism uses only language tags and implicitly leaves aside
any discussion of script or region tags. I'm going to assume this was a
intentional decision that was considered by the group with the end result being
that there was no perceived need to distinguish between (e.g.) Latin and Jawi
scripts for Malay, or (e.g.) Brazilian and Portuguese variations of 'pt'. (If
this was not an explicit decision made by the WG, I would ask that it be posed
to the WG for an explicit decision -- the current mechanism seems somewhat
deficient in this regard from my admittedly brief analysis of the situation.)

I'm a little worried that an imprecise reading by implementors of the citation
to RFC5646 may lead them to believe that script and region tags may be included
in the Content-Language header fields. If the assumptions I discuss above are
true, please add text making it clear that script and region tags are forbidden.