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

[Bill Buhler]

Seconded, must doesn't hurt the meaning, and is firmer.

-----Original Message-----
From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Leif Sawyer
Sent: Friday, June 06, 2014 2:05 PM
To: David Farmer; Kevin Kargel; arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-12: Anti-hijack Policy

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.


_______________________________________________
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.