[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs
bill at herrin.us
Fri Apr 5 11:07:05 EDT 2013
On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 9:45 AM, David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu> wrote:
> On 4/5/13 08:31 , William Herrin wrote:
>> This could be misread to mean "/32 or /36 respectively" instead of
>> "either /32 or /36 as the registrant chooses."
> That's was bugging me too, but I wasn't sure how to fix it. How about;
> g. An LIR that requests a smaller /36 or /40 allocation is entitled to
> expand the allocation to either /32 or /36 at any time without renumbering
> or additional justification. ...
> Does that cover it without getting to wordy?
I'm not sure if "either" makes a difference. Maybe "expand the
allocation to a choice of /36 or /32.: Might also help to reverse the
order of /32 and /36 so that "respectively" doesn't fit right.
Or redo the whole sentence as something like, "A LIR that requests a
smaller than /32 allocation is entitled to expand the allocation to a
choice of /36 or /32 at any time [...]"
> e. All block(s) returned must not be in use by the organization or its
> Not a big change but it read a little better.
It's the "All  must not" construction that seems clumsy to me.
Normally it's "all must" or "no may."
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
More information about the ARIN-PPML