Multiple Language Content Type
draft-ietf-slim-multilangcontent-14

[Ballot comment]
Comments from Ben and Mirja need to be considered.

Also Adam's points about using Language codes instead of Language tags also needs a clarification.

[Ballot 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.

[Ballot 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"?

[Ballot comment]
As I understand it, this is designed so that if you have an MUA which
doesn't understand this document you get the preface as the first
thing you see. That doesn't seem crazy, but isn't the common case that
you have one preferred language that most recipients speak and then
some translations. Wouldn't it make sense to at least allow people to
have that be what non-updated MUAs display? That seems at least
disfavored if not impossible (because I can't tag that one with
its actual language). Am I missing something?

[Ballot comment]
Minor comments:
- sec 3.2:
"If there is a From field present, its value MUST
  include the same email address as the top-level From header..."
What happen if they are no the same? The security considerations section mentions this case but there is no guidance given what to do in this case (which address to display)?

- The security considerations section mentions the risk that the content might actually be different in different languages. I think it would be nice to give some recommendation that there SHOULD be a way for the user to see all content fields.

[Ballot comment]
Minor comments:
- sec 3.2:
"If there is a From field present, its value MUST
  include the same email address as the top-level From header..."
What happen if they are no the same? The security considerations section mentions this case but there is no guidance given what to do in this case (which address to display)?
- The security considerations section mentions the risk that the content might actually be different in different languages. I think it would be nice to give some recommendation that there SHOULD be a way for the user to see all content fields.

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Services Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-slim-multilangcontent-09. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

The IANA Services Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there are two actions which we must complete.

First, in the multipart subregistry of the Media Types registry located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/

a new Media Type will be registered as follows:

Name: multilingual
Template: [ TBD-at-registration ]
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Second, in the Permanent Message Header Field Names registry on the Message Headers registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/message-headers/

a new Message Header will be registered as follows:

Header Field Name: Translation-Type
Template:
Protocol: mail
Status: Standard
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Because this registry requires Expert Review [RFC5226] for registration, we've contacted the IESG-designated expert in a separate ticket to request approval. Expert review should be completed before your document can be approved for publication as an RFC.

The IANA Services Operator understands that these two actions are the only ones required to be completed upon approval of this document.

Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed.

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
IANA Services Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2017-08-08):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: slim@ietf.org, draft-ietf-slim-multilangcontent@ietf.org, slim-chairs@ietf.org, alexey.melnikov@isode.com, Bernard Aboba , bernard.aboba@gmail.com
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Multiple Language Content Type) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Selection of Language for Internet
Media WG (slim) to consider the following document: - 'Multiple Language
Content Type'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2017-08-08. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of
the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document defines an addition to the Multipurpose Internet Mail
  Extensions (MIME) standard to make it possible to send one message
  that contains multiple language versions of the same information.
  The translations would be identified by a language tag and selected
  by the email client based on a user's language settings.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-slim-multilangcontent/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-slim-multilangcontent/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.


The document contains these normative downward references.
See RFC 3967 for additional information:
    draft-tomkinson-multilangcontent: Multiple Language Content Type (None - )
    draft-tomkinson-slim-multilangcontent: Multiple Language Content Type (None - )

Document Writeup for draft-ietf-slim-multilangcontent-08

Document Shepherd: Bernard Aboba (bernard.aboba@gmail.com)

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?

It is requested that this document be published as a Proposed Standard. The header indicates that Standards Track publication is desired.
This document needs to be on the Standards Track since a standard way to handle multiple language content is needed to ensure interoperability.

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary:

  The objective of this document is to define an addition to the
  Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) standard, to make it
  possible to send a single message to a group of people in such a way
  that all of the recipients can read the email in their preferred
  language.

Working Group Summary:

Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough?

This document has been non-controversial.

Document Quality:

Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted?

There are no known implementations.

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?

Bernard Aboba (SLIM WG co-chair) is the Document Shepherd.  The responsible area director is Alexey Melnikov (ART AD).

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded
to the IESG.

The SLIM WG co-chairs (Bernard Aboba and Natasha Rooney) have reviewed the document. We believe it is ready for publication.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

No.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization?
If so, describe the review that took place.

Individuals knowledgeable about email and language negotiation have reviewed the document.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of?
For example, perhaps  he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the
document, detail those concerns here.

No specific concerns.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?

Yes.  Confirmations:
Nathaniel Borenstein: https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/slim/current/msg00963.html
Nik Tomkinson: https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/slim/current/msg00962.html

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

No IPR disclosures have been filed.

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?

WG consensus represented the concurrence of those WG participants who weighed in on it (4-5).

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a
separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

No appeals have been threatened.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist).
Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

Below is the output from idnits.  One error was found: lack of a Table of Contents.

idnits 2.14.02

tmp/draft-ietf-slim-multilangcontent-08.txt:
tmp/draft-ietf-slim-multilangcontent-08.txt(688): Possible code comment in line:        more message/*) may contain 7-bit, 8-bit or binary encodings..
tmp/draft-ietf-slim-multilangcontent-08.txt(712): Found possible FQDN 'rfc.nik.tomkinson' in position 7; this doesn't match RFC 2606's suggested ".example" or ".example.(com|org|net)".

- The draft-ietf-slim-multilangcontent state file is not from today.
  Attempting to download a newer one...
- Success fetching draft-ietf-slim-multilangcontent state file.

- The draft-ietf-slim-negotiating-human-language state file is not from today.
  Attempting to download a newer one...
- Success fetching draft-ietf-slim-negotiating-human-language state file.

- The draft-tomkinson-multilangcontent state file is not from today.
  Attempting to download a newer one...
- Success fetching draft-tomkinson-multilangcontent state file.

- The draft-tomkinson-slim-multilangcontent state file is not from today.
  Attempting to download a newer one...
- Success fetching draft-tomkinson-slim-multilangcontent state file.

- The rfc1996 state file is not from today.
  Attempting to download a newer one...
- Success fetching rfc1996 state file.

- The rfc2046 state file is not from today.
  Attempting to download a newer one...
- Success fetching rfc2046 state file.

- The rfc2047 state file is not from today.
  Attempting to download a newer one...
- Success fetching rfc2047 state file.

- The rfc2183 state file is not from today.
  Attempting to download a newer one...
- Success fetching rfc2183 state file.

- The rfc3282 state file is not from today.
  Attempting to download a newer one...
- Success fetching rfc3282 state file.

- The rfc4647 state file is not from today.
  Attempting to download a newer one...
- Success fetching rfc4647 state file.

- The rfc480 state file is not from today.
  Attempting to download a newer one...
- Success fetching rfc480 state file.

- The rfc5646 state file is not from today.
  Attempting to download a newer one...
- Success fetching rfc5646 state file.

- The rfc6532 state file is not from today.
  Attempting to download a newer one...
- Success fetching rfc6532 state file.

- The rfc822 state file is not from today.
  Attempting to download a newer one...
- Success fetching rfc822 state file.

- The rfc997 state file is not from today.
  Attempting to download a newer one...
- Success fetching rfc997 state file.

  Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see
  http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info):
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

  Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  ** The document is more than 15 pages and seems to lack a Table of Contents.


  Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  == There are 1 instance of lines with non-RFC2606-compliant FQDNs in the
    document.


  Miscellaneous warnings:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  -- The document date (June 12, 2017) is 29 days in the past.  Is this
    intentional?

  -- Found something which looks like a code comment -- if you have code
    sections in the document, please surround them with '' and
    '' lines.


  Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
    to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)

  == Outdated reference: A later version (-12) exists of
    draft-ietf-slim-negotiating-human-language-10


    Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 2 comments (--).

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

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
 
This document does not require MIB Doctor, media type or URI type reviews.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?

Yes.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

There are no normative references to drafts, only RFCs.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.

No.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not
listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

No.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that
the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified.
Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry,
that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

There is a request to register the multipart/multilingual MIME type as well as the Translation-Type field.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations.
Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

There are no new IANA registries created by this document.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

This document does not utilize any formal languages.


We are pleased to announce that this draft has entered into Working Group Last Call. We will aim to exit WGLC on 12th August, which gives us three week from today.

Issues: if you have issues please submit these to the IETF Issue Tracker at [1]. Please feel free to discuss items on the list also.

[1] https://tools.ietf.org/wg/slim/trac/newticket