Bug#1125411: unbound vs resolvconf: no CTTE action at this time

--WL3OPqgTtvxqMLSi
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline

Control: noowner -1
Control: retitle -1 agree on the purpose of resolvconf hooks in resolvers
Control: reassign -1 unbound,resolvconf

Hello LRob, Michael and Andrej,

LRob referred a disagreement with unbound maintainer Michael about the use of
the resolvconf hook to the CTTE. The resulting discussion made it clear that
the issue was not well-researched by the submitter beforehand. Several angles
and options for resolving the disagreement evolved. For instance, not
installing resolvconf would provide the semantic sought by the submitter. In
particular, the purpose of the resolvconf hook is ambiguous in our view.  The
resolvconf README states:

| Local DNS cache programs must be able to arrange for nameserver
| addresses supplied by interfaces to be passed to them for use as
| forwarders.  The libc resolver should use any local DNS caches that
| are available.

It also mentions how this is intended to apply to bind9 (which by default is a
recursive resolver).

| * To make bind9 use nameserver addresses supplied by other sources as
|   addresses of forwarders, ...

On the flip side, resolvconf maintainer Andrej stated in the bug discussion:

> If I were an unbound user, I would NOT expect it to ship resolvconf
> integration by default precisely because it is described as a recursive
> resolver.

To us, this makes it evident that the available documentation of the hook
interface is not clear enough to determine whether unbound's use is intended.

We believe that there is a constructive path forward in clarifying how
recursive resolvers should interface with resolvconf, but this is design work
rather then mediating a disagreement between developers. As such it falls
outside the powers and responsibility of the CTTE.

We therefore hand the issue back to the submitter and the relevant package
maintainers without issuing a decision. Please work together towards clarifying
the purpose of the hook interface and making resolver implementations adapt
their hooks if necessary.

If you end up running into an unresolvable disagreement in that process, you
may refer the issue back to the CTTE, but for now we expect that more work is
invested in resolving the matter cooperatively. In particular, consistent
behavior between packages is a key design aspect. Establishing such
consistency, requires research that we have not seen in the discussion.

Helmut for the CTTE

--WL3OPqgTtvxqMLSi
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=G8qj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--WL3OPqgTtvxqMLSi--