[arin-ppml] 2014-12

Rudolph Daniel rudi.daniel at gmail.com
Thu May 22 10:46:14 EDT 2014


I generally agree with Kevin. Buy 'should be allocated' I have no problem
with.

Rudi Daniel
On May 22, 2014 10:08 AM, "Kevin Kargel" <kkargel at polartel.com> wrote:

> IMHO “Should” and “May” have no place in policy.  They are both no-ops as
> they place no restrictions and carry no authority.  They would be perfectly
> at home in a best practices document, but serve no function in policy.
>
> Kevin
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] *On
> Behalf Of *Rudolph Daniel
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 21, 2014 4:34 PM
> *To:* arin-ppml at arin.net
> *Subject:* Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-12
>
>
>
>
> >>their experimental >>documentation (should) clearly >>describe ....
>
> Would you consider changing 'should' to 'shall' to suggest mandatory
> requirement?
>
> And
>
> >   justify why a larger allocation >(is required)
>
> 'is required'  to
> 'should be allocated'
>
> Rudi Daniel
>
> On May 21, 2014 5:20 PM, <arin-ppml-request at arin.net> wrote:
>
> Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to
>         arin-ppml at arin.net
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>         http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         arin-ppml-request at arin.net
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         arin-ppml-owner at arin.net
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of ARIN-PPML digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-12: Anti-hijack    Policy
>       (Owen DeLong)
>    2. Re: Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-12:        Anti-hijack
> Policy
>       (Leif Sawyer)
>    3. Re: Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-12: Anti-hijack Policy
>       (David Farmer)
>    4. Re: Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-13: Reduce All Minimum
>       Allocation/Assignment Units to /24 (Derek Calanchini)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 11:33:42 -0700
> From: Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com>
> To: David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu>
> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-12:
>         Anti-hijack     Policy
> Message-ID: <E966D949-CBE7-4BB2-AE10-0D42B27752AB at delong.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> >
> > In looking at the sentence in question; I think the "have" in the
> sentence is extraneous, and can deleted.  Then changing "this" to "a larger
> allocation" and the tense changes you suggest, results in;
> >
> >   If an organization requires more resource than stipulated by the
> >   minimum allocation sizes in force at the time of their request,
> >   their experimental documentation should clearly describe and
> >   justify why a larger allocation is required.
> >
>
> s/resource/resources/
> s/minimum allocation sizes/applicable minimum allocation size/
> s/experimental documentation/request/
>
> result:
>
> If an organization requires more resources than stipulated by the
> applicable minimum allocation in force at the time of their request, their
> request should clearly describe and justify why a larger allocation is
> required.
>
> I think this not only parses better, but is more accurate.
>
> The first change resolves a grammar error.
> The second change avoids ambiguity between whether all requests are
> subject to all minimums in this case vs. the intended meaning that the
> minimum applicable elsewhere in policy.
> The third change is because their documentation should be documentation of
> an experiment, not experimental documentation and what we really care about
> is the information provided in their ARIN request anyway.
>
> I think since this is a minor change which does not alter the meaning of
> the policy and does improve readability and clarity, that we should
> probably go ahead and incorporate it as you proposed prior to last call.
>
> Owen
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 10:52:48 -0800
> From: Leif Sawyer <lsawyer at gci.com>
> To: Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com>, David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu>
> Cc: "arin-ppml at arin.net" <arin-ppml at arin.net>
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-12:
>         Anti-hijack     Policy
> Message-ID:
>         <18B2C6E38A3A324986B392B2D18ABC5102C7F8AA3B at fnb1mbx01.gci.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252
>
> s/should/must
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
> Behalf Of Owen DeLong
> Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2014 10:34 AM
> To: David Farmer
> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-12:
> Anti-hijack Policy
>
> >
> > In looking at the sentence in question; I think the "have" in the
> > sentence is extraneous, and can deleted.  Then changing "this" to "a
> > larger allocation" and the tense changes you suggest, results in;
> >
> >   If an organization requires more resource than stipulated by the
> >   minimum allocation sizes in force at the time of their request,
> >   their experimental documentation should clearly describe and
> >   justify why a larger allocation is required.
> >
>
> s/resource/resources/
> s/minimum allocation sizes/applicable minimum allocation size/
> s/experimental documentation/request/
>
> result:
>
> If an organization requires more resources than stipulated by the
> applicable minimum allocation in force at the time of their request, their
> request should clearly describe and justify why a larger allocation is
> required.
>
> I think this not only parses better, but is more accurate.
>
> The first change resolves a grammar error.
> The second change avoids ambiguity between whether all requests are
> subject to all minimums in this case vs. the intended meaning that the
> minimum applicable elsewhere in policy.
> The third change is because their documentation should be documentation of
> an experiment, not experimental documentation and what we really care about
> is the information provided in their ARIN request anyway.
>
> I think since this is a minor change which does not alter the meaning of
> the policy and does improve readability and clarity, that we should
> probably go ahead and incorporate it as you proposed prior to last call.
>
> Owen
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 15:03:39 -0500
> From: David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu>
> To: Leif Sawyer <lsawyer at gci.com>,    Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com>
> Cc: "arin-ppml at arin.net" <arin-ppml at arin.net>
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-12:
>         Anti-hijack Policy
> Message-ID: <537D069B.5030601 at umn.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
>
> I think "should" is sufficiently strong, and gives ARIN Staff a little
> wiggle room to do what makes sense.  There really have never been that
> many experimental allocations.
>
> We had a big whoopsie with all 5 RIR's authorizing /12 anchor routes.
> ARIN probably won't do that again anyway, but it's still worth a small
> fix in policy, just to be clear about it.  The sentence is question is a
> little rough, so while we are at it a little editorial clean up is
> probably in order, but please let's not over do it.
>
> I really would like to hear from a few more people about if this
> editorial change is a good idea or not, even a few +/-1s would be helpful.
>
> Thanks.
>
> On 5/21/14, 13:52 , Leif Sawyer wrote:
> > s/should/must
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
> Behalf Of Owen DeLong
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2014 10:34 AM
> > To: David Farmer
> > Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
> > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-12:
> Anti-hijack Policy
> >
> >>
> >> In looking at the sentence in question; I think the "have" in the
> >> sentence is extraneous, and can deleted.  Then changing "this" to "a
> >> larger allocation" and the tense changes you suggest, results in;
> >>
> >>    If an organization requires more resource than stipulated by the
> >>    minimum allocation sizes in force at the time of their request,
> >>    their experimental documentation should clearly describe and
> >>    justify why a larger allocation is required.
> >>
> >
> > s/resource/resources/
> > s/minimum allocation sizes/applicable minimum allocation size/
> s/experimental documentation/request/
> >
> > result:
> >
> > If an organization requires more resources than stipulated by the
> applicable minimum allocation in force at the time of their request, their
> request should clearly describe and justify why a larger allocation is
> required.
> >
> > I think this not only parses better, but is more accurate.
> >
> > The first change resolves a grammar error.
> > The second change avoids ambiguity between whether all requests are
> subject to all minimums in this case vs. the intended meaning that the
> minimum applicable elsewhere in policy.
> > The third change is because their documentation should be documentation
> of an experiment, not experimental documentation and what we really care
> about is the information provided in their ARIN request anyway.
> >
> > I think since this is a minor change which does not alter the meaning of
> the policy and does improve readability and clarity, that we should
> probably go ahead and incorporate it as you proposed prior to last call.
> >
> > Owen
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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.
> >
>
>
> --
> ================================================
> 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
> ================================================
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 14:18:56 -0700
> From: Derek Calanchini <derekc at cnets.net>
> To: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-13: Reduce
>         All Minimum Allocation/Assignment Units to /24
> Message-ID: <537D1840.7020005 at cnets.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20140521/3f8fb7ce/attachment.html
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: cnslogo1.bmp
> Type: image/bmp
> Size: 72774 bytes
> Desc: not available
> URL: <
> http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20140521/3f8fb7ce/attachment.bmp
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-PPML mailing list
> ARIN-PPML at arin.net
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>
> End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 107, Issue 26
> ******************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20140522/3f1d8164/attachment.html>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list