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

David Farmer 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 mailing list