On 6/6/14, 11:04 , David Farmer wrote: > [...]Given the "should" is immediately followed by a conditional "unless" > the intent seems sufficiently clear, the intent is to create a special-case > exception, and "should" seems appropriate. Furthermore, "must" or "shall" > followed by "unless" seemed an awkward way to create such an exception. > > Staff generally agrees that in most cases for policy "must" is preferred > and it is best to avoid "should" in most cases. However, in the sentence > above the intent seem clear enough and "should" seems appropriate in that > particular case.
Unfortunately, that still has indirect parsing issues. 1. You should eat an ice-cream cone, unless you ate a taco. [and then you shouldn't...but you still could] 2. You must eat an ice-cream cone, unless you ate a taco. [ sorry, no ice-cream for you, taco-eater. You get a churro instead. ] It's tri-state versus dual-state. If the objective is to refine intent, then we should be most clear about our intent and diminish the grey areas where possible. _______________________________________________ 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.
