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

[Nik Tomkinson <[e-mail]>]

Hi Ben,

thanks for all of your comments.

Regarding the multilingual preface, the implementation I am working on at
the moment does select the languages to include in the preface from the
language parts that have been added into the email and the preface
paragraphs are all hard-coded strings. The preface should not be static as
a whole for any specific MUA.

It is reasonable for the sender to know which languages are going to be
included as they will have the translations ready to insert into the
different parts of the email. I suppose this really is a question of the
specification defining how an implementation should work or how the email
should be structured. I have always understood it to be a specification of
the email structure not implementation behaviour.

I would not have imagined that any implementation would expect the sender
to construct the preface but just include it automatically. Any
hand-written multilingual email would have include a hand-written preface
of course.

---

Intent - yes, I'll remove that word as it may be superfluous.

---

As for multiple language independent parts, yes this could happen and
either of the ways that Alexey identified would be valid.

---

The section 11 (Security Considerations) comment is a good point. I had not
thought of that, but if filtering logic checks the different languages,
then there should be no profanity or offensive material to forward on. I
think I will add this case to section 11 anyway.

---

I will update the I-D based on your Editorial comments as well as they are
all valid. I assume you mean that section 3.2 the SHOULD should be a should?
Also, in section 7 do you mean the first, the last or both 'should's should
be SHOULD?

Thanks again,

Nik.

On 17 August 2017 at 10:41, Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]> wrote:

> 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
>



-- 

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Multiple Language Content Type Internet Draft:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-slim-multilangcontent/

-----------------------------------------------------------------