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

[Leif Sawyer]

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.