On Thu, Sep 20, 2007 at 07:01:50PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > There is apparently no counterproposal, so I hereby propose and call > for a vote on the following resolution: > > -8<- > 1. RFC3484 s6 rule 9 should not be applied to IPv4 addresses > by Debian systems, and we overrule the maintainer. If the > maintainer has not uploaded a suitable change within 1 > week, Ian Jackson is mandated to make an NMU in sid. > 2. RFC3484 s6 rule 9 should not be applied to IPv6 addresses > by Debian systems. However, we do not overrule the maintainer > on this point and we do not authorise changing it via an NMU. > 3. We recommend to the IETF that RFC3484 s6 rule 9 should be > abolished, definitely for IPv4, and probably for IPv6 too. > -8<- > -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > [2] Choice X: Do not use rule 9, overrule maintainer, etc., as above. > [2] Choice S: Sort IPv4 addrs according to rule 9 in getaddrinfo > [1] Choice F: Further discussion > -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- I don't think the tech ctte should be authorising themselves to do NMUs under any circumstances. AFAICS we should be making a definitive statement wrt both Rule 9 and IPv6 and to whether (and if so, how) we'll be reverting the behaviour in stable. Cheers, aj
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature