[rpd] IPv4 Soft Landing BIS

[Alan Barrett]

> On 29 Jul 2017, at 11:15, Ish Sookun <ish at lsl.digital> wrote:
> 
> My point is rather that Section 5.4.3.1.1 of the IPv4 Soft Landing
> policy proposal should be considered "current phase" and the mention of
> /10 in the proposal is incorrect.

In any revision to the soft landing policy, I would suggest that the authors use a term like “pre-exhaustion phase” instead of “current phase”, because the phase that was current at the time the policy was written, the phase that is current today, and the phase that will be current in 5 years from now, are not all the same.

Alan Barrett