On 9/13/2013 5:48 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote: > RFC 4880 is explicit: > > Some implementations do not represent the interest of a single user > (for example, a key server). Such implementations always trim local > certifications from any key they handle.
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. 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. _______________________________________________ Sks-devel mailing list Sks-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/sks-devel
