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