[arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-12: Anti-hijack Policy
farmer at umn.edu
Mon Jun 2 12:04:49 EDT 2014
On 6/2/14, 09:26 , Kevin Kargel wrote:
> 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”..
Sorry, I don't have time to debate this issue in general at this moment.
The PPC at NANOG 61 is just over 24 hours away.
> 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.”
Are you suggesting we should also change that sentence as well? If you
are I need to know ASAP, like I said the PPC is just over 24 hours away
and I have to finalize the presentation ASAP. I would also like to hear
support from a couple others on PPML before opening that sentence also
to changes, as well.
> 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.
I also respectfully disagree. However, I will discuss the issue with
ARIN staff here at NANOG to understand how they interpret this issue.
David Farmer Email: 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
More information about the ARIN-PPML