[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#727754: marked as done (New "security-aware-resolver" virtual package)

Your message dated Fri, 11 Aug 2017 12:44:51 -0700
with message-id <87o9rlx51o.fsf@iris.silentflame.com>
and subject line Closing inactive Policy bugs
has caused the Debian Bug report #727754,
regarding New "security-aware-resolver" virtual package
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
727754: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=727754
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.9.4
Severity: wishlist

Le Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 09:28:32AM +0200, Ondřej Surý a écrit :
> Hi James,
> 
> since the authoritative-name-server idea was rejected by the list, I was
> going to propose alternative:
> 
> security-aware-resolver
> 
> The definition from RFC4033:
> 
>    Security-Aware Resolver: An entity acting in the role of a resolver
>       (defined in section 2.4 of [RFC1034]) that understands the DNS
>       security extensions defined in this document set.  In particular,
>       a security-aware resolver is an entity that sends DNS queries,
>       receives DNS responses, supports the EDNS0 ([RFC2671]) message
>       size extension and the DO bit ([RFC3225]), and is capable of using
>       the RR types and message header bits defined in this document set
>       to provide DNSSEC services.

Dear all,

are there Debian Developers seconding or objecting to this new virtual package
name ?

Have a nice week-end,

-- 
Charles Plessy
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
control: user debian-policy@packages.debian.org
control: usertag -1 +obsolete
control: tag -1 +wontfix

Russ Allbery and I did a round of in-person bug triage at DebConf17 and
we are closing this bug as inactive.

The reasons for closing fall into the following categories, from most
frequent to least frequent:

- issue is appropriate for Policy, there is a consensus on how to fix
  the problem, but preparing the patch is very time-consuming and no-one
  has volunteered to do it, and we do not judge the issue to be
  important enough to keep an open bug around;

- issue is appropriate for Policy but there does not yet exist a
  consensus on what should change, and no recent discussion.  A fresh
  discussion might allow us to reach consensus, and the messages in the
  old bug are unlikely to help very much; or

- issue is not appropriate for Policy.

If you feel this bug is still relevant and want to restart the
discussion, you can re-open the bug.  However, please consider instead
opening a new bug with a message that summarises and condenses the
previous discussion, updates the report for the current state of Debian,
and makes clear exactly what you think should change.

A lot of these old bugs have long side tangents and numerous messages,
and that old discussion is not necessarily helpful for figuring out what
Debian Policy should say today.

-- 
Sean Whitton

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


--- End Message ---
Reply to: