Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-slim-multilangcontent
draft-ietf-slim-multilangcontent
IETF N. Tomkinson
Internet-Draft N. Borenstein
Intended status: Standards Track Mimecast Ltd
Expires: February 19, 2018 August 18, 2017
Multiple Language Content Type
draft-ietf-slim-multilangcontent-14
Abstract
This document defines the multipart/multilingual content type, which
is 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.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on February 19, 2018.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
Tomkinson & Borenstein Expires February 19, 2018 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Multiple Language Content Type August 2017
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. The Content-Type Header Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. The Message Parts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. The Multilingual Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. The Language Message Parts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.3. The Language Independent Message Part . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Message Part Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. The Content-Language Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. The Content-Translation-Type Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. The Subject Field in the Language Message parts . . . . . . . 7
8. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8.1. An Example of a Simple Multiple language email message . 8
8.2. An Example of a Multiple language email message with
language independent part . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8.3. An Example of a complex Multiple language email message
with language independent part . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10.1. The multipart/multilingual MIME type . . . . . . . . . . 13
10.2. The Content-Translation-Type Field . . . . . . . . . . . 15
10.3. The Content-Translation-Type Field Values . . . . . . . 15
11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
12. Changes from Previous Versions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
13.2. Informational References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
1. Introduction
Since the invention of email and the rapid spread of the Internet,
more and more people have been able to communicate in more and more
countries and in more and more languages. But during this time of
technological evolution, email has remained a single-language
communication tool, whether it is English to English, Spanish to
Spanish or Japanese to Japanese.
Also during this time, many corporations have established their
offices in multi-cultural cities and formed departments and teams
that span continents, cultures and languages, so the need to
communicate efficiently with little margin for miscommunication has
grown significantly.
Tomkinson & Borenstein Expires February 19, 2018 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Multiple Language Content Type August 2017
This document defines the multipart/multilingual content type, which
is 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. The methods of translation of the message
content are beyond the scope of this document, but the structure of
the email itself is defined herein.
Whilst this document depends on identification of language in message
parts for non-real-time communication, there is a companion document
that is concerned with a similar problem for real-time communication:
[I-D.ietf-slim-negotiating-human-language]
1.1. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
2. The Content-Type Header Field
The "multipart/multilingual" MIME subtype allows the sending of a
message in a number of different languages with the translations
embedded in the same message. This MIME subtype helps the receiving
email client make sense of the message structure.
The multipart subtype "multipart/multilingual" has similar semantics
to "multipart/alternative" (as discussed in RFC 2046 [RFC2046]) in
that each of the message parts is an alternative version of the same
information. The primary difference between "multipart/multilingual"
and "multipart/alternative" is that when using "multipart/
multilingual", the message part to select for rendering is chosen
based on the values of the Content-Language field and optionally the
Content-Translation-Type field instead of the ordering of the parts
and the Content-Types.
The syntax for this multipart subtype conforms to the common syntax
for subtypes of multipart given in section 5.1.1. of RFC 2046
[RFC2046]. An example "multipart/multilingual" Content-Type header
field would look like this:
Content-Type: multipart/multilingual; boundary=01189998819991197253
3. The Message Parts
A multipart/multilingual message will have a number of message parts:
exactly one multilingual preface, one or more language message parts
Tomkinson & Borenstein Expires February 19, 2018 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Multiple Language Content Type August 2017
and zero or one language independent message part. The details of
these are described below.
3.1. The Multilingual Preface
In order for the message to be received and displayed in non-
conforming email clients, the message SHOULD contain an explanatory
message part which MUST NOT be marked with a Content-Language field
and MUST be the first of the message parts. For maximum support in
the most basic of non-conforming email clients, it SHOULD have a
Content-Type of text/plain. Because non-conforming email clients are
expected to treat a message with an unknown multipart type as
multipart/mixed (in accordance with sections 5.1.3 and 5.1.7 of RFC
2046 [RFC2046]) they may show all of the message parts sequentially
or as attachments. Including and showing this explanatory part will
help the message recipient understand the message structure.
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.
As this explanatory section is likely to contain languages using
scripts that require non-US-ASCII characters, it is RECOMMENDED that
UTF-8 charset is used for this message part. See RFC 3629 [RFC3629]
for details of UTF-8.
Whilst this section of the message is useful for backward
compatibility, it will normally only be shown when rendered by a non-
conforming email client, because conforming email clients SHOULD only
show the single language message part identified by the user's
preferred language and the language message part's Content-Language.
For the correct display of the multilingual preface in a non-
conforming email client, the sender MAY use the Content-Disposition
field with a value of 'inline' in conformance with RFC 2183 [RFC2183]
(which defines the Content-Disposition field). If provided, this
SHOULD be placed at the multipart/multilingual level and in the
multilingual preface. This makes it clear to a non-conforming email
client that the multilingual preface should be displayed immediately
to the recipient, followed by any subsequent parts marked as
'inline'.
For an example of a multilingual preface, see the examples in
Section 8.
Tomkinson & Borenstein Expires February 19, 2018 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Multiple Language Content Type August 2017
3.2. The Language Message Parts
The language message parts are typically translations of the same
message content. These message parts SHOULD be ordered so that the
first part after the multilingual preface is in the language believed
to be the most likely to be recognised by the recipient as this will
constitute the default part when language negotiation fails and there
is no Language Independent part. All of the language message parts
MUST have a Content-Language field and a Content-Type field and MAY
have a Content-Translation-Type field.
The Content-Type for each individual language message part SHOULD be
message/rfc822 to provide good support with non-conforming email
clients. However, an implementation MAY use message/global as
support for message/global becomes more commonplace. See RFC 6532
[RFC6532] for details of message/global. Each language message part
should have a Subject field in the appropriate language for that
language part. If there is a From field present, its value MUST
include the same email address as the top-level From header although
the display name MAY be a localised version. If there is a mismatch
of sender email address, the top-level From header value SHOULD be
used to show to the recipient.
3.3. The Language Independent Message Part
If there is language independent content for the recipient to see if
they have a preferred language other than one of those specified in
the language message parts and the default language message part is
unlikely to be understood, another part MAY be provided. This part
could typically include one or more language independent graphics.
When this part is present, it MUST be the last part and MUST have a
Content-Language field with a value of "zxx" (as described in BCP 47/
RFC 5646 [RFC5646]). The part SHOULD have a Content-Type of message/
rfc822 or message/global (to match the language message parts).
4. Message Part Selection
The logic for selecting the message part to render and present to the
recipient is summarised in the next few paragraphs.
Firstly, if the email client does not understand multipart/
multilingual then it will treat the message as if it was multipart/
mixed and render message parts accordingly (in accordance with
sections 5.1.3 and 5.1.7 of RFC 2046 [RFC2046]).
If the email client does understand multipart/multilingual then it
SHOULD ignore the multilingual preface and select the best match for
the user's preferred language from the language message parts
Tomkinson & Borenstein Expires February 19, 2018 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Multiple Language Content Type August 2017
available. Also, the user may prefer to see the original message
content in their second language over a machine translation in their
first language. The Content-Translation-Type field value can be used
for further selection based on this preference. The selection of
language part may be implemented in a variety of ways, although the
matching schemes detailed in RFC 4647 [RFC4647] are RECOMMENDED as a
starting point for an implementation. The goal is to render the most
appropriate translation for the user.
If there is no match for the user's preferred language (or there is
no preferred language information available) the email client SHOULD
select the language independent part (if one exists) or the first
language part (directly after the multilingual preface) if a language
independent part does not exist.
If there is no translation type preference information available, the
values of the Content-Translation-Type field may be ignored.
Additionally, interactive implementations MAY offer the user a choice
from among the available languages or the option to see them all.
5. The Content-Language Field
The Content-Language field in the individual language message parts
is used to identify the language in which the message part is
written. Based on the value of this field, a conforming email client
can determine which message part to display (given the user's
language settings).
The Content-Language MUST comply with RFC 3282 [RFC3282] (which
defines the Content-Language field) and BCP 47/RFC 5646 [RFC5646]
(which defines the structure and semantics for the language tag
values).
Examples of this field could look like the following:
Content-Language: en-GB
Content-Language: de
Content-Language: es-MX, fr
Content-Language: sr-Cyrl
Tomkinson & Borenstein Expires February 19, 2018 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Multiple Language Content Type August 2017
6. The Content-Translation-Type Field
The Content-Translation-Type field can be used in the individual
language message parts to identify the type of translation. Based on
the value of this parameter and the user's preferences, a conforming
email client can determine which message part to display.
This field can have one of three possible values: 'original', 'human'
or 'automated' although other values may be added in the future. A
value of 'original' is given in the language message part that is in
the original language. A value of 'human' is used when a language
message part is translated by a human translator or a human has
checked and corrected an automated translation. A value of
'automated' is used when a language message part has been translated
by an electronic agent without proofreading or subsequent correction.
New values of the Content-Translation-Type header field
("translTypeExt" in the ABNF) are added according to procedure
specified in Section 10.3.
Examples of this field include:
Content-Translation-Type: original
Content-Translation-Type: human
The syntax of the Content-Translation-Type field in ABNF RFC 5234
[RFC5234] is:
Content-Translation-Type = [FWS] translationtype
FWS = <Defined in RFC 5322>
translationtype = "original" / "human" / "automated" /
translTypeExt
translTypeExt = 1*atext
atext = <Defined in RFC 5322>
This references RFC 5322 [RFC5322] for the pre-defined rules FWS and
atext.
7. The Subject Field in the Language Message parts
On receipt of the message, conforming email clients will need to
render the subject in the correct language for the recipient. To
enable this the Subject field SHOULD be provided in each language
message part. The value for this field should be a translation of
the email subject.
Tomkinson & Borenstein Expires February 19, 2018 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Multiple Language Content Type August 2017
US-ASCII and 'encoded-word' examples of this field include:
Subject: A really simple email subject
Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?Un_asunto_de_correo_electr=C3=b3nico_
realmente_sencillo?=
See RFC 2047 [RFC2047] for the specification of 'encoded-word'.
The subject to be presented to the recipient SHOULD be selected from
the message part identified during the message part selection stage.
If no Subject field is found the top-level Subject header field value
should be used.
8. Examples
8.1. An Example of a Simple Multiple language email message
Below is a minimal example of a multiple language email message. It
has the multilingual preface and two language message parts.
From: Nik@example.com
To: Nathaniel@example.com
Subject: Example of a message in Spanish and English
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2017 21:28:00 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/multilingual;
boundary="01189998819991197253"
--01189998819991197253
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
This is a message in multiple languages. It says the
same thing in each language. If you can read it in one language,
you can ignore the other translations. The other translations may be
presented as attachments or grouped together.
Este es un mensaje en varios idiomas. Dice lo mismo en
cada idioma. Si puede leerlo en un idioma, puede ignorar las otras
traducciones. Las otras traducciones pueden presentarse como archivos
adjuntos o agrupados.
--01189998819991197253
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Language: en-GB
Content-Translation-Type: original
Tomkinson & Borenstein Expires February 19, 2018 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Multiple Language Content Type August 2017
Content-Disposition: inline
Subject: Example of a message in Spanish and English
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
MIME-Version: 1.0
Hello, this message content is provided in your language.
--01189998819991197253
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Language: es-ES
Content-Translation-Type: human
Content-Disposition: inline
Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?Ejemplo_pr=C3=A1ctico_de_mensaje_?=
=?UTF-8?Q?en_espa=C3=B1ol_e_ingl=C3=A9s?=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
MIME-Version: 1.0
Hola, el contenido de este mensaje esta disponible en su idioma.
--01189998819991197253--
8.2. An Example of a Multiple language email message with language
independent part
Below is an example of a multiple language email message that has the
multilingual preface followed by two language message parts and then
a language independent png image.
From: Nik@example.com
To: Nathaniel@example.com
Subject: Example of a message in Spanish and English
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2017 21:08:00 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/multilingual;
boundary="01189998819991197253"
--01189998819991197253
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
This is a message in multiple languages. It says the
same thing in each language. If you can read it in one language,
you can ignore the other translations. The other translations may be
Tomkinson & Borenstein Expires February 19, 2018 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Multiple Language Content Type August 2017
presented as attachments or grouped together.
Este es un mensaje en varios idiomas. Dice lo mismo en
cada idioma. Si puede leerlo en un idioma, puede ignorar las otras
traducciones. Las otras traducciones pueden presentarse como archivos
adjuntos o agrupados.
--01189998819991197253
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Language: en-GB
Content-Translation-Type: original
Content-Disposition: inline
Subject: Example of a message in Spanish and English
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
MIME-Version: 1.0
Hello, this message content is provided in your language.
--01189998819991197253
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Language: es-ES
Content-Translation-Type: human
Content-Disposition: inline
Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?Ejemplo_pr=C3=A1ctico_de_mensaje_?=
=?UTF-8?Q?en_espa=C3=B1ol_e_ingl=C3=A9s?=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
MIME-Version: 1.0
Hola, el contenido de este mensaje esta disponible en su idioma.
--01189998819991197253
Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="Icon"
Content-Language: zxx
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Type: image/png; name="icon.png"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAADAAAAAwCAYAAABXAvmHAAAKQ2lDQ1BJQ0MgUHJvZmlsZQAA
SA2dlndUU1... shortened for brevity ...7yxfd1SNsEy+OXr76qr
997zF2hvZYeDEP5ftGV6Xzx2o9MAAAAASUVORK5CYII=
--01189998819991197253--
Tomkinson & Borenstein Expires February 19, 2018 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Multiple Language Content Type August 2017
8.3. An Example of a complex Multiple language email message with
language independent part
Below is an example of a more complex multiple language email
message. It has the multilingual preface and two language message
parts and then a language independent png image. The language
message parts have multipart/alternative contents and would therefore
require further processing to determine the content to display.
From: Nik@example.com
To: Nathaniel@example.com
Subject: Example of a message in Spanish and English
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2017 20:55:00 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/multilingual;
boundary="01189998819991197253"
--01189998819991197253
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
This is a message in multiple languages. It says the
same thing in each language. If you can read it in one language,
you can ignore the other translations. The other translations may be
presented as attachments or grouped together.
Este es un mensaje en varios idiomas. Dice lo mismo en
cada idioma. Si puede leerlo en un idioma, puede ignorar las otras
traducciones. Las otras traducciones pueden presentarse como archivos
adjuntos o agrupados.
--01189998819991197253
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Language: en-GB
Content-Translation-Type: original
Content-Disposition: inline
Subject: Example of a message in Spanish and English
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="72530118999911999881"; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
MIME-Version: 1.0
--72530118999911999881
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Tomkinson & Borenstein Expires February 19, 2018 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Multiple Language Content Type August 2017
Hello, this message content is provided in your language.
--72530118999911999881
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<html><body>Hello, this message content is <b>provided</b> in
<i>your</i> language.</body></html>
--72530118999911999881--
--01189998819991197253
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Language: es-ES
Content-Translation-Type: human
Content-Disposition: inline
Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?Ejemplo_pr=C3=A1ctico_de_mensaje_?=
=?UTF-8?Q?en_espa=C3=B1ol_e_ingl=C3=A9s?=
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="53011899989991197281"; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
MIME-Version: 1.0
--53011899989991197281
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Hola, el contenido de este mensaje esta disponible en su idioma.
--53011899989991197281
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<html><body>Hola, el contenido de este <b>mensaje</b> <i>esta</i>
disponible en su idioma.</body></html>
--53011899989991197281--
--01189998819991197253
Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="Icon"
Content-Language: zxx
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
boundary="99911972530118999881"; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
MIME-Version: 1.0
--99911972530118999881
Tomkinson & Borenstein Expires February 19, 2018 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Multiple Language Content Type August 2017
Content-Type: image/png; name="icon.png"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAADAAAAAwCAYAAABXAvmHAAAKQ2lDQ1BJQ0MgUHJvZmlsZQAA
SA2dlndUU1... shortened for brevity ...7yxfd1SNsEy+OXr76qr
997zF2hvZYeDEP5ftGV6Xzx2o9MAAAAASUVORK5CYII=
--99911972530118999881--
--01189998819991197253--
9. Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful for the helpful input received from many
people but would especially like to acknowledge the help of Harald
Alvestrand, Stephane Bortzmeyer, Eric Burger, Ben Campbell, Mark
Davis, Doug Ewell, Ned Freed, Randall Gellens, Gunnar Hellstrom,
Mirja Kuehlewind, Barry Leiba, Sean Leonard, John Levine, Alexey
Melnikov, Addison Phillips, Julian Reschke, Pete Resnick, Adam Roach,
Brian Rosen, Fiona Tomkinson, Simon Tyler and Daniel Vargha.
The authors would also like to thank Fernando Alvaro and Luis de
Pablo for their work on the Spanish translations.
10. IANA Considerations
10.1. The multipart/multilingual MIME type
The multipart/multilingual MIME type will be registered with IANA
including a reference to this document. This is the registration
template:
Tomkinson & Borenstein Expires February 19, 2018 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Multiple Language Content Type August 2017
Media Type name: multipart
Media subtype name: multilingual
Required parameters: boundary (defined in RFC2046)
Optional parameters: N/A
Encoding considerations: There are no encoding considerations for
this multipart other than that of the embedded body parts.
The embedded body parts (typically one text/plain plus one or
more message/*) may contain 7-bit, 8-bit or binary encodings.
Security considerations: See the Security Considerations section
in RFC XXXX
Interoperability considerations:
Existing systems that do not treat unknown multipart subtypes
as multipart/mixed may not correctly render a
multipart/multilingual type. These systems would also be non-
compliant with MIME.
Author/Change controller: IETF
Published specification: RFC XXXX
Applications that use this media type:
Mail Transfer Agents, Mail User Agents, spam detection,
virus detection modules and message authentication modules.
Additional information:
Deprecated alias names for this type: N/A
Magic number(s): N/A
File extension(s): N/A
Macintosh file type code(s): N/A
Person & email address to contact for further information:
Nik Tomkinson
rfc.nik.tomkinson@gmail.com
Nathaniel Borenstein
nsb@mimecast.com
Intended usage: Common
Tomkinson & Borenstein Expires February 19, 2018 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Multiple Language Content Type August 2017
10.2. The Content-Translation-Type Field
The Content-Translation-Type field will be added to the IANA
"Permanent Message Header Field Names" registry. That entry will
reference this document. This is the registration template:
Header field name: Content-Translation-Type
Applicable protocol: mime
Status: Standard
Author/Change controller: IETF
Specification document(s): RFC XXXX
Related information: none
10.3. The Content-Translation-Type Field Values
IANA is requested to create a new registry for Content-Translation-
Type Header Field values. New values must be registered using
"Specification Required" IANA registration procedure. Registrations
must include translation type value, short description and a URI of
the specification.
This document also registers 3 initial values specified below.
Value: original
Description:
Content in the original language
Reference: RFC XXXX
Value: human
Description:
Content that has been translated by a human translator
or a human has checked and corrected an automated translation
Reference: RFC XXXX
Value: automated
Description:
Content that has been translated by an electronic agent
without proofreading or subsequent correction
Reference: RFC XXXX
Tomkinson & Borenstein Expires February 19, 2018 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Multiple Language Content Type August 2017
11. Security Considerations
Whilst it is intended that each language message part is a direct
translation of the original message, this may not always be the case
and these parts could contain undesirable content. Therefore there
is a possible risk that undesirable text or images could be shown to
the recipient if the message is passed through a spam filter that
does not check all of the message parts. The risk should be minimal
due to the fact that an unknown multipart subtype should be treated
as multipart/mixed and so each message part should be subsequently
scanned.
If the email contains undesirable content in a language that the
recipient cannot understand and this unknown content is assumed to be
a direct translation of the content that the recipient can
understand, the recipient may unintentionally forward undesirable
content to a recipient that can understand it. To mitigate this
risk, an interactive implementation may allow the recipient to see
all of the translations for comparison.
Because the language message parts have a Content-Type of message/
rfc822 or message/global, they might contain From fields which could
have different values to that of the top-level From field and may not
reflect the actual sender. The inconsistent From field values might
get shown to the recipient in a non-conforming email client and may
mislead the recipient into thinking that the email came from someone
other than the real sender.
12. Changes from Previous Versions
12.1. Changes from draft-tomkinson-multilangcontent-01 to draft-
tomkinson-slim-multilangcontent-00
o File name and version number changed to reflect the proposed WG
name SLIM (Selection of Language for Internet Media).
o Replaced the Subject-Translation field in the language message
parts with Subject and provided US-ASCII and non-US-ASCII
examples.
o Introduced the language-independent message part.
o Many wording improvements and clarifications throughout the
document.
Tomkinson & Borenstein Expires February 19, 2018 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Multiple Language Content Type August 2017
12.2. Changes from draft-tomkinson-slim-multilangcontent-00 to draft-
tomkinson-slim-multilangcontent-01
o Added Translation-Type in each language message part to identify
the source of the translation (original/human/automated).
12.3. Changes from draft-tomkinson-slim-multilangcontent-01 to draft-
tomkinson-slim-multilangcontent-02
o Changed Translation-Type to be a parameter for the Content-
Language field rather than a new separate field.
o Added a paragraph about using Content-Disposition field to help
non-conforming mail clients correctly render the multilingual
preface.
o Recommended using a Name parameter on the language part Content-
Type to help the recipient identify the translations in non-
conforming mail clients.
o Many wording improvements and clarifications throughout the
document.
12.4. Changes from draft-tomkinson-slim-multilangcontent-02 to draft-
ietf-slim-multilangcontent-00
o Name change to reflect the draft being accepted into SLIM as a
working group document.
o Updated examples to use UTF-8 encoding where required.
o Removed references to 'locale' for identifying language
preference.
o Recommended language matching schemes from RFC 4647 [RFC4647].
o Renamed the unmatched part to language independent part to
reinforce its intended purpose.
o Added requirement for using Content-Language: zxx in the language
independent part.
o Many wording improvements and clarifications throughout the
document.
Tomkinson & Borenstein Expires February 19, 2018 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Multiple Language Content Type August 2017
12.5. Changes from draft-ietf-slim-multilangcontent-00 to draft-ietf-
slim-multilangcontent-01
o Changed the inner content type to require message/rfc822 or
message/global.
o Updated the examples to reflect the new inner content types.
o Added to the security considerations to highlight the risk from
insufficient spam filters.
12.6. Changes from draft-ietf-slim-multilangcontent-01 to draft-ietf-
slim-multilangcontent-02
o Restricted the use of a From field in the language message parts
and the language independent part.
o Updated the security considerations to highlight the risk of an
unmatched sender addresses that could be set in the language
message parts.
12.7. Changes from draft-ietf-slim-multilangcontent-02 to draft-ietf-
slim-multilangcontent-03
o Relaxed the restriction on the use of the From field in the
language message parts to allow a localised version of the
sender's display name.
12.8. Changes from draft-ietf-slim-multilangcontent-03 to draft-ietf-
slim-multilangcontent-04
o Updated the wording of the security considerations section to
reflect the relaxation of the use of the From field in the
language message parts.
12.9. Changes from draft-ietf-slim-multilangcontent-04 to draft-ietf-
slim-multilangcontent-05
o Referenced the RFC for message/global in Language Message Parts
section.
o Removed RFC 2119 keyword in the Message Part Selection section.
o Included full email addresses in all examples.
o Updated reference name of real-time companion document in the
Introduction.
Tomkinson & Borenstein Expires February 19, 2018 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Multiple Language Content Type August 2017
o Removed paragraph warning of over use of language sub-tags.
o Changed 'exponential' to 'significantly' in Introduction.
12.10. Changes from draft-ietf-slim-multilangcontent-05 to draft-ietf-
slim-multilangcontent-06
o Changed parameter Translation-Type back to a new field to reduce
the risk of breaking existing implementations that don't expect
any parameters on Content-Language.
o Improved the IANA Considerations section to include the full
registration template for the multipart/multilingual type and the
new Translation-Type field.
12.11. Changes from draft-ietf-slim-multilangcontent-06 to draft-ietf-
slim-multilangcontent-07
o Updated the Encoding Considerations in the IANA Registration
Template.
12.12. Changes from draft-ietf-slim-multilangcontent-07 to draft-ietf-
slim-multilangcontent-08
o Reordered the sections to make the Security Considerations easier
to find.
o Shortened a line in one of the examples that was longer than 72
characters.
o Updated the link to the real-time companion document to the latest
version.
12.13. Changes from draft-ietf-slim-multilangcontent-08 to draft-ietf-
slim-multilangcontent-09
o Removed the phrase "and SHOULD NOT have a Subject field and SHOULD
NOT have a From field" in section 3.3 because the language
independent part would be message/rfc822 or message/global so it
is likely to have From and Subject fields.
o For the same reason as above, the phrase "(for example if the
language independent part is selected)" was removed from section
7.
o Phrase in part 3.3 was reworded from "This could typically be a
language independent graphic" to "This could typically include a
language independent graphic".
Tomkinson & Borenstein Expires February 19, 2018 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Multiple Language Content Type August 2017
12.14. Changes from draft-ietf-slim-multilangcontent-09 to draft-ietf-
slim-multilangcontent-10
o Added Normative Reference to RFC 3629 for details of UTF-8 in the
Multilingual Preface section.
o Added ABNF for Translation-Type field.
o Updated example 2 to contain a image/png language independent
image directly rather than it being nested inside multipart/mixed
content.
o Inserted Change Controller into IANA template for multipart/
multilingual.
o Replaced references to "This document" with RFC XXXX in the IANA
considerations.
12.15. Changes from draft-ietf-slim-multilangcontent-10 to draft-ietf-
slim-multilangcontent-11
o Updated the applicable protocol for the Translation-Type field in
the IANA registration template to be 'mime' rather than 'mail'.
o Added that updated specification documents would be the source of
new values for the Translation-Type field.
12.16. Changes from draft-ietf-slim-multilangcontent-11 to draft-ietf-
slim-multilangcontent-12
o Updated the ABNF for Translation-Type to allow for future values.
o Added section 10.3 to explain about the Translation-Type values
and providing new values.
12.17. Changes from draft-ietf-slim-multilangcontent-12 to draft-ietf-
slim-multilangcontent-13
o Changed the field name Translation-Type to Content-Translation-
Type.
o Explicitly specified the 3 initial values for Content-Translation-
Type in the IANA Considerations section.
Tomkinson & Borenstein Expires February 19, 2018 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Multiple Language Content Type August 2017
12.18. Changes from draft-ietf-slim-multilangcontent-13 to draft-ietf-
slim-multilangcontent-14
o Added table of contents.
o Added notes about the risk of unwittingly forwarding undesirable
content to the Security Considerations section.
o Updated 'language code' to 'language tag' in section 5 to make it
clear that language tag values including country codes and script
codes are allowed.
o Updated the examples to use language tag values that include a
country code.
o Added a note into section 3.2 to specify what should happen if
mismatched sender addresses are found in the language parts.
o Many wording improvements and clarifications throughout the
document.
13. References
13.1. Normative References
[RFC2046] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
Extensions (MIME) Part Two: Media Types", RFC 2046,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2046, November 1996,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2046>.
[RFC2047] Moore, K., "MIME (Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions)
Part Three: Message Header Extensions for Non-ASCII Text",
RFC 2047, DOI 10.17487/RFC2047, November 1996,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2047>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC2183] Troost, R., Dorner, S., and K. Moore, Ed., "Communicating
Presentation Information in Internet Messages: The
Content-Disposition Header Field", RFC 2183,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2183, August 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2183>.
Tomkinson & Borenstein Expires February 19, 2018 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Multiple Language Content Type August 2017
[RFC3282] Alvestrand, H., "Content Language Headers", RFC 3282,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3282, May 2002,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3282>.
[RFC3629] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO
10646", STD 63, RFC 3629, DOI 10.17487/RFC3629, November
2003, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3629>.
[RFC4647] Phillips, A. and M. Davis, "Matching of Language Tags",
BCP 47, RFC 4647, DOI 10.17487/RFC4647, September 2006,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4647>.
[RFC5234] Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5234, January 2008, <https://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc5234>.
[RFC5322] Resnick, P., Ed., "Internet Message Format", RFC 5322,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5322, October 2008, <https://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc5322>.
[RFC5646] Phillips, A., Ed. and M. Davis, Ed., "Tags for Identifying
Languages", BCP 47, RFC 5646, DOI 10.17487/RFC5646,
September 2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5646>.
[RFC6532] Yang, A., Steele, S., and N. Freed, "Internationalized
Email Headers", RFC 6532, DOI 10.17487/RFC6532, February
2012, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6532>.
13.2. Informational References
[I-D.ietf-slim-negotiating-human-language]
Gellens, R., "Negotiating Human Language in Real-Time
Communications", draft-ietf-slim-negotiating-human-
language-13 (work in progress), July 2017.
Authors' Addresses
Nik Tomkinson
Mimecast Ltd
CityPoint, One Ropemaker Street
London EC2Y 9AW
United Kingdom
Email: rfc.nik.tomkinson@gmail.com
Tomkinson & Borenstein Expires February 19, 2018 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft Multiple Language Content Type August 2017
Nathaniel Borenstein
Mimecast Ltd
480 Pleasant Street
Watertown MA 02472
North America
Email: nsb@mimecast.com
Tomkinson & Borenstein Expires February 19, 2018 [Page 23]
