[elangoc]

Can you also comment on how the current decipherments are going? And how much progress has been made in the Dravido-Elamite angle?

This book came out that republishes incomplete research that establishes cognates and place name parallels, although no grammatical connections made. In light of the progress made in the IVC script, it seems compelling. https://tamilnet.com/art.html?catid=79&artid=38813

In the meantime since this article was published in 2013, for IVC in terms of a Dravidian language, there's been a lot of progress in terms of script decipherment (to the point where the theory has become proof), archaeology, and DNA analysis that support each other consistently.

[Hillsborough]

The thesis that the IVC language may have been related to Dravidian is dead as a dodo. Only Tamil nationalists pursue it. There's really nothing to the Elamo Dravidian hypothesis also. For a time it was pushed feverishly by a David McAlpin. The theory rested on a slender footing. Essentially there was a Dravidian affiliated language called Brahui spoken in Baluchistan by a small number which raised possibility of IVC language being Dravidian and at another remove, an Elamo Dravidian language family. But the Brahui language is now accepted by most experts as a medieval period (i.e., 1000-1600 AD) immigrant into the highlands of Baluchistan from Central India. This has basically blown the stuffing off the Dravidian hypothesis for IVC - not that it was ever very strong. The Dravidian language family, in the opinion of experts, continues to be an isolate confined to southern India.

[lolc]

Sorry, my comment above was at the very limit of my knowledge. I was the odd non-linguist in the group.