<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;"><div><font face="Calibri,sans-serif">[[ Finally following up after a long break. ]]</font></div><div><font face="Calibri,sans-serif"><br></font></div><div><div>> Thank you for the clarifications, on today's conference call and on the mailing</div><div>> list.</div><div>> </div><div>> We have the general question of what, in addition to the base character set</div><div>> specified in rfc1034/1035, drawing on earlier rfcs, letters-digits-and-hyphen,</div><div>> is necessary for constructing labels, for users of latin script.</div><div>> </div><div>> Our work product will be of the form of some rules for the formation of</div><div>> identifiers, constrained by the limitations on labels arising from the IDNA work</div><div>> of 2003 and 2010.</div><div><br></div><div>Aren't we are supposed to only be looking at IDNA2008 (which was finished in 2010)? All the documents seem to list that version.</div><div><br></div><div>> There may be context-specific rules, perhaps for labels which originate, or</div><div>> terminate, a sequence of labels, e.g., those labels published as part of the</div><div>> IANA root zone and are composed of characters a single script as defined in the</div><div>> current version of UNICODE.</div><div><br></div><div>The Generation Panels output is for labels in the root zone only, not for labels in the second level and below. Our output goes to the Integration Panel to put into the Root Zone LGR. All of the documents I've seen so far talk about the Root Zone LGR.</div><div><br></div><div>> What ever those context-specific rules may be, ours is the general problem of</div><div>> identifiers expressed in the latin script, used to associate resources at public</div><div>> addresses by the protocol defined in rfc1034/1035 and their successors. If a</div><div>> label is terminal, there may be terminal-specific rules.</div><div>> </div><div>> My understanding is that our peers in the Armenian GP have informed us (via the</div><div>> "similar scripts" question in our common boiler-plate initial document) that</div><div>> there are one or more glyphs common to the Armenian script which are similar to</div><div>> one or more glyphs common to the Latin script. In general this is probably not</div><div>> "news", as whatever the final form of general rules we issue as our work</div><div>> product, our rules are likely to "be aware" that homoglyphs exist, etc.</div></div><div><br></div><div>Have we heard back from the Integration Panel on this?</div><div><br></div><div>--Paul Hoffman</div></body></html>