I will respectfully disagree. What is the point of "should"? Even in the
example you gave it would better as "must unless" or "shall unless" instead of
"should unless" . With "should" there is no reason for the unless because
there is no requirement to do otherwise in the first place.
Should leaves a loophole that can be easily exploited, i.e. "you never said we
had to do that, you just said we should, so I can technically do whatever I
want"..
It would be perfectly functional to say:
"The allocation size shall be consistent with the existing ARIN minimum
allocation sizes, unless small allocations are intended to be explicitly
part
of the experiment."
Using "should" in the statement makes it a no-op. With "should" you can choose
not to follow what is only a suggestion. If you use "shall" or "must" you have
enforceable policy. If the policy is not enforceable it is nothing more than a
best practice statement at best.
Kevin
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
Of David Farmer
Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2014 4:56 PM
To: Leif Sawyer; Owen DeLong
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-12: Anti-hijack
Policy
After thinking about this for a while, the justification for a larger
allocation is clearly intended to be a requirement, and not intended to be
optional. So, "must" seems appropriate in the case. However, I can't agree
with the comments that "should" and "may" are inappropriate in policy all
together. A perfect example is the sentence just before the one we are
discussing.
The allocation size should be consistent with the existing ARIN minimum
allocation sizes, unless small allocations are intended to be explicitly
part
of the experiment.
Therefore, putting all the suggesting together, here is text for the Editorial
Change I'm proposing at the PPC next week.
If an organization requires more resource resources than stipulated by the
applicable minimum allocation sizes size in force at the time of their
request,
their experimental documentation should have request must clearly described
describe and justified justify why this a larger allocation is required.
Thanks
On 5/21/14, 17:23 , Leif Sawyer wrote:
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]<mailto:[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]>
[mailto:[email protected]]
On Behalf Of Owen DeLong
Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2014 10:34 AM
To: David Farmer
Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[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
--
================================================
David Farmer Email: [email protected]<mailto:[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.
