<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Paul,<br>
<br>
Taking your interlinear comments in sequence, your first comment
goes to the work completed in 2010, which updates and
significantly changed the prior IETF work product, published in
2003. However, I should have mentioned the prior "IDN Testbed" of
2000, memorialized by the Corporation Board, as my intent was to
suggest that work restricted to domain names has been ongoing for
some time, though obviously not as long as internationalization
and localization work, and the publication of standards for
character repertoires.<br>
<br>
Your second comment goes to the scope of the Latin panel's work.
Is it limited to a single label, the initial label to the left of
the terminating dot character? I've no doubt that there exists a
consumer of the Latin panel's work product that has both (a) a
scope of interest restricted to the initial label to the left of
the terminating dot character, and (b) additional rules generally
unknown to the members of the Latin panel, not arising from the
general properties of Latin script. More generally, we can't know
that an adjacent label can only exist at one, but not both,
terminators of a label, as that is not a property of Latin script,
nor a property of the sets of processing rules we assume valid,
where not contradicting, which are the encoding rules of 2010. If
we did "know that", then we would, of necessity, also "know that"
our work product is only true for one label in any sequence of
labels, even were all labels in a sequence are composed of
characters from the Latin script repertoire. I suggest it is
better we do not know, and assume any label is neither initial nor
terminal, and where initial and/or terminal rules exist, they are
the responsibility of those who make positional rules rather than
organic script rules.<br>
<br>
To your third comment I've not heard from the Integration Panel,
nor do I expect to.<br>
<br>
I should point out that as Staff, you are free to direct the
volunteer contributors in any way you see fit, and I may lack the
qualifications necessary to assist the Corporation in this area.<br>
<br>
Eric<br>
<br>
On 10/12/15 1:29 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:D2416210.1066%25paul.hoffman@icann.org"
type="cite">
<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>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>