On 6/6/14, 1:09 PM, Bill Buhler wrote:
Seconded, must doesn't hurt the meaning, and is firmer.
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
Of Leif Sawyer
Sent: Friday, June 06, 2014 2:05 PM
To: David Farmer; Kevin Kargel; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-12: Anti-hijack
Policy
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. ]
No.
1. Ice cream recommended but optional in all cases, not recommended but
permissible for taco-eaters.
2. Ice cream mandatory for non-taco-eaters, optional for taco-eaters.
What you are perhaps looking for is:
3. If you ate a taco, you must not eat an ice-cream cone, else you must
eat an ice-cream cone.
_______________________________________________
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.
