Re: [Sks-devel] SKS should not accept or replay non-exportable certifications

[Daniel Kahn Gillmor]

On 09/13/2013 06:01 PM, Robert J. Hansen wrote:

> I don't see a MUST in there.  The language is not explicit without it.
> Is it a case of they SHOULD always, they MAY always, or they MUST
> always?  Without specification it's unclear.

The intent is pretty clear, despite it not rising to the level of an RFC
2119 MUST.  Did anyone on this list expect the keyserver network to
propagate non-exportable certifications?

> Although I am inclined to think the current behavior is a bug, I'm also
> inclined to think this is making a mountain out of a molehill.

Sorry, can you explain how reporting a bug is making a mountain out of a
molehill?

I'm not saying that the world is collapsing, i'm reporting a bug in a
piece of free software on the mailing list where that free software is
discussed, and hoping to help find a way to fix it.  I'm hoping for
responses in similar good faith.

All the best,

        --dkg

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature