[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs

[William Herrin]

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?

Hi David,

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
> customers.
>
> 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."

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004