Dear Myanmar GP members, Please find the IP response to the GP’s question as attached and below. Kindly let us know if you have further queries. Regards, Pitinan To: Myanmar GP From: Integration Panel Subject: requests for clarification of prior IP feedback We are responding here to the items highlighted in yellow in the GP reply on IP Response on Myanmar-LGR-20190620. We understand that the GP is seeking further clarification of our feedback in these areas and we are attempting to provide that below and in the attached document. Should any further questions remain, we invite the Myanmar GP to engage in a quick iterative process to resolve any outstanding issues. --------------- General Remark 2 We are referring here to the various long lists of very specific sequences. We think an inventory of known medial sequences makes a useful appendix, but we have our doubts that all of these sequences need to be defined in the repertoire. (See other comments). Feedback on Supporting document Item 10c: Items 1,2,3 in our feedback describe some of the valid reasons that make a sequence NOT redundant; our comment applies to all sequences that DO NOT satisfy 1,2, or 3 and are therefore redundant. Item 11 there is no objection to defining U+1063 via a sequence. However, 1063 should not be listed as "excluded" in the table in the supporting document, because it is effectively "conditionally included via sequence". It should also not be listed in the standard repertoire table, because it isn't a standard repertoire element, so perhaps it could be listed in a table by itself? Item 14 Please review our document on "Supporting sequences in an LGR". It may clarify what we mean by redundant sequences. In short, it is any sequence that can be removed from an LGR without changing the resulting set of allowed labels. We believe that this is the case for the sequences mentioned, based on how context rules in an LGR are to be evaluated. Inside a sequence, context rules for the code points that are members of the sequence are not evaluated at all. Therefore, CMM overrides the context rule on M for the second M. However, a label CMMM is not possible: when the context for the last M is evaluated, it is not part of a sequence and it therefore follows an M which is not allowed. Our document also discusses how to manage various side-effects introduced by sequences. Feedback on XML: All the comments on any normative sequences apply to the XML as well. Feedback on Test files item 4: The IP does some mechanical checks on sequences defined in an LGR to see whether they might be redundant or not well-behaved (see "Supporting Sequences in an LGR" document). Some sequences are defined in a way that our tool can confidently predict may have an issue. Others can only be flagged as requiring human verification/confirmation. Where we write that a "sequence may be fine" we would like the GP to explicitly tell us (perhaps in the document) why a particular sequence is in fact non-redundant and why it is required. The LGR is complex and the consequences of defining a sequence may not be obvious to everyone, therefore a more explicit documentation of the intent of the GP would allow us to review that the LGR specification matches the intent. From: MyanmarGP <myanmargp-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Pitinan Kooarmornpatana <pitinan.koo@icann.org> Date: Tuesday, August 20, 2019 at 19:17 To: "myanmargp@icann.org" <myanmargp@icann.org> Subject: Re: [MyanmarGP] FW: IP Response on Myanmar-LGR-20190620 Dear Myanmar GP members, Yin May have reviewed the IP feedback and we made some notes how to response in the file attached. Kindly review and feedback. And as discussed during the public consultation, the weekly meeting will be set on Tuesdays. Yin May suggested that the GP will meet online on Tuesdays 8.30 PM (Yangon time) for 4 more weeks to update the LGR proposal, starting next Tuesday. The meeting invitation will be sent shortly. Regards, Pitinan From: MyanmarGP <myanmargp-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Pitinan Kooarmornpatana <pitinan.koo@icann.org> Date: Monday, July 22, 2019 at 21:06 To: "myanmargp@icann.org" <myanmargp@icann.org> Subject: [MyanmarGP] FW: IP Response on Myanmar-LGR-20190620 Dear Myanmar GP members, Please find attached the feedback from the IP for your consideration. Kindly review and update the proposal. We can setup a call for further discussion, if you think it is useful. Please suggest your available time. Regards, Pitinan