Re: [Slim] Ben Campbell's Yes on draft-ietf-slim-multilangcontent-13: (with COMMENT)

[Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]>]

Hi Ben,

On Wed, Aug 16, 2017, at 11:10 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:
> Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-slim-multilangcontent-13: Yes

> Hi, just some minor comments:
> 
> Substantive:
> 
> - 3.1: "This initial message part SHOULD explain briefly to the recipient
>    that the message contains multiple languages and the parts may be
>    rendered sequentially or as attachments.  This SHOULD be presented in
>    the same languages that are provided in the subsequent language
>    message parts."
> 
> It seems likely that this message will be relatively static (perhaps
> preloaded
> or configured) for messages sent by any particular MUA. Is it reasonable
> to
> expect the MUA (or the person who configures it) to know in advance all
> languages likely to be used? Is it expected to dynamically select the
> languages
> from the ones used by the language specific body parts?

This is a good question. I think I agree that it can be potentially
generated per the list of languages used.

> -3.3: I'm not sure I understand the first sentence. Why does that
> ''intent"
> matter?
> 
> This section seems to take about a single language-independent part.
> Could
> there be multiple language-Independent attachments?

This is generally allowed by MIME. One way of doing this is:

 Top level multipart/mixed
   child 1: multipart/multilingual
   child 2: <1st language-Independent attachment>
   child 3: <2nd language-Independent attachment>

Alternatively, you can use multipart/multilingual:

 Top level multipart/multilingual
   child 1: text/plain
   child 2: message/rfc822 with nested message in English
   child 3: message/rfc822 with nested message in French
   child 4: message/rfc822 with nested message in German
   child 5: multipart/mixed (language independent part)
    child 5.1: <1st language-Independent attachment>
    child 5.2: <2nd language-Independent attachment>

> -11, first paragraph: It seems like there might be some more subtle
> abuses than
> slipping past a spam filter. For example, if a recipient falsely assumes
> that
> all the body parts say the same thing, might they be induced into taking
> some
> action? (e.g.  forwarding offensive material targeted at speakers of a
> specific
> language)?
> 
> Editorial:
> 
> - Abstract: Please consider mentioning the subtype by name in the
> abstract.
> 
> - 1: "The objective of this document is to define..."
> Did it succeed in its objective? :-)   (Consider "This document
> defines...:)
> 
> - 3.2: "Each language message part SHOULD have a Subject field in the
> appropriate language for that language part." Since section 7 restates
> this
> SHOULD, and covers the topic in more detail, perhaps section 3.2 should
> state
> this descriptively rather than normatively?

Good comments/questions that editors should comment on.

> -7, last paragraph: Should the first "should" be a "SHOULD"?

I agree.

Best Regards,
Alexey