[arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-12: Anti-hijack Policy
lsawyer at gci.com
Fri Jun 6 16:04:54 EDT 2014
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. ]
It's tri-state versus dual-state. If the objective is to refine
intent, then we should be most clear about our intent and diminish
the grey areas where possible.
More information about the ARIN-PPML