[ppml] 2005-1 status

[Kevin Loch]

Owen DeLong wrote:
>> The main intent was to not require someone to actually request IPv4
>> if they qualify for it.  It was not my intent that micro-allocations
>> would qualify though it appears that they would as currently written.
>>
> If /22 is under 2002-3 is considered microallocation, then, I believe
> such organizations should absolutely qualify.  If we're talking about
> some other microallocation policy, then, we should be careful about
> how we word any changes.

By micro-allocations I was referring to allocations made under
section 4.4, which already have a corresponding IPv6 policy
in section 6.10.  /22,/21,/20 are not referred to as "micro"
in the NRPM and were absolutely intended to be included.

- Kevin