I just can't think of a time when "experimental documentation [should] clearly describe and justify" "should" ever be "doesn't"
hence my suggestion to use "must". -----Original Message----- From: David Farmer [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2014 12:04 PM To: Leif Sawyer; Owen DeLong Cc: David Farmer; [email protected] Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-12: Anti-hijack Policy 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.
