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

[Ben Campbell <[e-mail]>]

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-slim-multilangcontent-13: Yes

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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

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?

-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?

-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?

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