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

Bill Buhler bill at tknow.com
Fri Jun 6 16:09:57 EDT 2014

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.

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:
Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list