On Thu, Nov 29, 2007 at 07:51:37PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> This time can we _please_ try to get quorum ? You must send in your
> vote within 7 days of me sending this message, for it to count, ie by
> approximately 2007-12-06 19:50 +0000.
Well, not much leeway here it seems. FWIW, my vote on this resolution was
going to be:
-8<-
1. RFC3484 s6 rule 9 should not be applied to IPv4 addresses
by Debian systems, and we DO overrule the maintainer.
2. RFC3484 s6 rule 9 should not be applied to IPv6 addresses
by Debian systems. We do NOT overrule the maintainer.
3. We recommend to the IETF that RFC3484 s6 rule 9 should be
abolished for IPv4, and that it should be reconsidered for IPv6.
-8<-
-=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
[2] Choice X: Do not use rule 9, overrule maintainer, etc., as above.
[4] Choice S: Sort IPv4 addrs according to rule 9 in getaddrinfo
[4] Choice M: Leave the choice up to the maintainers.
[1] Choice F: Further discussion
-=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
which of course would have caused the resolution to fail supermajority. But
given that I think the technical outcome on the package is the correct one,
this is fine and I'll just get back to working on a position statement to
the IETF.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/
slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature