<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">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.<br>
<br>
The allocation size should be consistent with the existing
ARIN minimum <br>
allocation sizes, unless small allocations are intended to be
explicitly part <br>
of the experiment.<br>
<br>
Therefore, putting all the suggesting together, here is text for
the Editorial Change I'm proposing at the PPC next week.<br>
<br>
If an organization requires more <font color="#0000ff"><strike>resource</strike>
resources</font> than stipulated by the<font color="#0000ff"> <br>
applicable</font> minimum allocation <font color="#0000ff"><strike>size</strike><strike>s</strike>
size</font> in force at the time of their request,<br>
their <strike><font color="#0000ff">experimental
documentation </font></strike><strike><font color="#0000ff">should
have</font></strike> <font color="#0000ff">request must</font>
clearly <font color="#0000ff"><strike>describe</strike><strike>d</strike><br>
describe</font> and <font color="#0000ff"><strike>justif</strike><strike>ied</strike>
justify</font> why <font color="#0000ff"><strike>this</strike>
a larger allocation</font> is required.<br>
<br>
Thanks<br>
<br>
On 5/21/14, 17:23 , Leif Sawyer wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:18B2C6E38A3A324986B392B2D18ABC5102C7F8AB9D@fnb1mbx01.gci.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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 [<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:farmer@umn.edu">mailto:farmer@umn.edu</a>]
Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2014 12:04 PM
To: Leif Sawyer; Owen DeLong
Cc: David Farmer; <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net">arin-ppml@arin.net</a>
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:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">s/should/must
-----Original Message-----
From: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:arin-ppml-bounces@arin.net">arin-ppml-bounces@arin.net</a> [<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:arin-ppml-bounces@arin.net">mailto:arin-ppml-bounces@arin.net</a>]
On Behalf Of Owen DeLong
Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2014 10:34 AM
To: David Farmer
Cc: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net">arin-ppml@arin.net</a>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-12:
Anti-hijack Policy
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
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.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
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
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
================================================
David Farmer Email: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:farmer@umn.edu">farmer@umn.edu</a>
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
================================================ </pre>
</body>
</html>