[arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-12: Anti-hijack Policy

Kevin Kargel kkargel at polartel.com
Mon Jun 2 10:26:55 EDT 2014


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: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of David Farmer
Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2014 4:56 PM
To: Leif Sawyer; Owen DeLong
Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
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:farmer at umn.edu]

Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2014 12:04 PM

To: Leif Sawyer; Owen DeLong

Cc: David Farmer; arin-ppml at arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>

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: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net]

On Behalf Of Owen DeLong

Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2014 10:34 AM

To: David Farmer

Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>

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: farmer at umn.edu<mailto:farmer at umn.edu>

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

================================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20140602/3ecdf288/attachment.html>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list