[arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-12: Anti-hijack Policy
owen at delong.com
Sat Jun 7 03:57:51 EDT 2014
On Jun 6, 2014, at 1:04 PM, Leif Sawyer <lsawyer at gci.com> wrote:
> 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. ]
I parse sentence one as permitting an ice-cream cone after a taco, but
giving one the option of not eating an ice cream cone in either case.
I parse sentence two as requiring me to eat an ice cream cone unless
I eat a taco. However, if I eat a taco, I still have the option of eating
an ice cream cone if I wish.
As such, I don’t believe it accomplishes your stated intent, in fact.
More information about the ARIN-PPML