On 2014-05-06 at 17:53 +0200, Dinko Korunic wrote: > IMO delisting is fine as long as there is proper communication > involved and people actually are aware that's going on -- I'm sure > that not all the SKS administrators read the sks-devel on a > daily/weekly basis.
For clarity, this becomes: there's a chance that for a window of a couple of weeks, the only SKS administrators who will be in the rarely-used "subset" pool will be those who read SKS email daily. There's a chance that Kristian's main pool will become a set of servers run only by administrators who check their email at least every 45 days. This being the pool of keyservers which are the default for a number of mainstream clients. I'm really not seeing a problem with this. The merits of an individual keyserver being run for its own use are different from the merits of a hostname being used for some pool of keyservers. There is plenty of justification for making sure that "the hostname for the predominant pool used by people who don't change their keyserver definition from the default" resolves only to servers which are able to get a security update out within 45 days. -Phil _______________________________________________ Sks-devel mailing list Sks-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/sks-devel