I think "should" is sufficiently strong, and gives ARIN Staff a little
wiggle room to do what makes sense. There really have never been that
many experimental allocations.
We had a big whoopsie with all 5 RIR's authorizing /12 anchor routes.
ARIN probably won't do that again anyway, but it's still worth a small
fix in policy, just to be clear about it. The sentence is question is a
little rough, so while we are at it a little editorial clean up is
probably in order, but please let's not over do it.
I really would like to hear from a few more people about if this
editorial change is a good idea or not, even a few +/-1s would be helpful.
Thanks.
On 5/21/14, 13:52 , Leif Sawyer wrote:
s/should/must
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
Of Owen DeLong
Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2014 10:34 AM
To: David Farmer
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-12: Anti-hijack
Policy
In looking at the sentence in question; I think the "have" in the
sentence is extraneous, and can deleted. Then changing "this" to "a
larger allocation" and the tense changes you suggest, results in;
If an organization requires more resource than stipulated by the
minimum allocation sizes in force at the time of their request,
their experimental documentation should clearly describe and
justify why a larger allocation is required.
s/resource/resources/
s/minimum allocation sizes/applicable minimum allocation size/ s/experimental
documentation/request/
result:
If an organization requires more resources than stipulated by the applicable
minimum allocation in force at the time of their request, their request should
clearly describe and justify why a larger allocation is required.
I think this not only parses better, but is more accurate.
The first change resolves a grammar error.
The second change avoids ambiguity between whether all requests are subject to
all minimums in this case vs. the intended meaning that the minimum applicable
elsewhere in policy.
The third change is because their documentation should be documentation of an
experiment, not experimental documentation and what we really care about is the
information provided in their ARIN request anyway.
I think since this is a minor change which does not alter the meaning of the
policy and does improve readability and clarity, that we should probably go
ahead and incorporate it as you proposed prior to last call.
Owen
_______________________________________________
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public
Policy Mailing List ([email protected]).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
--
================================================
David Farmer Email: [email protected]
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE Phone: 1-612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 1-612-812-9952
================================================
_______________________________________________
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
