On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 19:01:50 +0100, Ian Jackson
<ian@davenant.greenend.org.uk> said:
> 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 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
[1] Choice X: Do not use rule 9, overrule maintainer, etc., as above.
[3] Choice S: Sort IPv4 addrs according to rule 9 in getaddrinfo
[2] Choice F: Further discussion
-=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Sorry for the delay; I have been swamped at work.
manoj
--
Single tasking: Just Say No.
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Attachment:
pgpJIKy88Q7ja.pgp
Description: PGP signature