[rpd] SL update policy, and its implication for a transition pool.

[Ish Sookun]

On 12/3/18 1:40 AM, Nishal Goburdhan wrote:
> 
> fwiw, i support the _intent_ of the policy;  however, i do not think
> that this (the lack of a transition pool) was raised as a concern, if
> the update to SL was adopted as proposed.  i would have expected this,
> from the staff analysis.  (i am sure there might be more concerns too,
> if folks sat down and though about them…)
> 

I support this idea if it considered by the policy authors.

Regards,

Ish Sookun