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

[Jay Hennigan]

On 6/6/14, 1:09 PM, Bill Buhler wrote:
> 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. ]

No.

1. Ice cream recommended but optional in all cases, not recommended but 
permissible for taco-eaters.

2. Ice cream mandatory for non-taco-eaters, optional for taco-eaters.

What you are perhaps looking for is:

3. If you ate a taco, you must not eat an ice-cream cone, else you must 
eat an ice-cream cone.