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

David Farmer farmer at umn.edu
Sat May 31 17:55:53 EDT 2014


After thinking about this for a while, the justification for a larger 
allocation is clearly intended to be a requirement, and not intended to 
be optional.  So, "must" seems appropriate in the case.  However, I 
can't agree with the comments that "should" and "may" are inappropriate 
in policy all together.  A perfect example is the sentence just before 
the one we are discussing.

     The allocation size should be consistent with the existing ARIN 
minimum
     allocation sizes, unless small allocations are intended to be 
explicitly part
     of the experiment.

Therefore, putting all the suggesting together, here is text for the 
Editorial Change I'm proposing at the PPC next week.

     If an organization requires more resource resources than stipulated 
by the
     applicable minimum allocation sizes size in force at the time of 
their request,
     their experimental documentation should have request must clearly 
described
     describe and justified justify why this a larger allocation is 
required.

Thanks

On 5/21/14, 17:23 , Leif Sawyer wrote:
> I just can't think of a time when
>     "experimental documentation [should] clearly describe and justify"
> "should" ever be  "doesn't"
>
>
> hence my suggestion to use "must".
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Farmer [mailto:farmer at umn.edu]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2014 12:04 PM
> To: Leif Sawyer; Owen DeLong
> Cc: David Farmer; arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-12: Anti-hijack Policy
>
> 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
>>
-- 
================================================
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
================================================

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20140531/7cdd0d06/attachment.html>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list