[Internal-cg] Questions from webinars

[Alan Barrett]

On Sat, 22 Aug 2015, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
> It is a pity that even at the level of ICG there is several 
> understanding of what PTI means bad cover I was not an ICG 
> Liaison ti CWG but actively followed the discussions.  In view 
> of the fact that PTI was designed to address accountability 
> and oversight if transition mainly fir names we could not put 
> Numbers and Protocols at the level and the authority as that 
> of Names.  I know all IETF and CRISP wish to do so but it is 
> inappropriate

I am unable to understand this comment.

In what sense do Numbers and Protocol Parameters have a lower 
level or less authority than Names?

What inappropriate thing it it alleged that IETF and CRISP wish to 
do?

--apb (Alan Barrett)