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

[Robert J. Hansen]

On 9/13/2013 6:09 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> 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?

I did, and I think I'm speaking as a reasonable, rational human being
with a good deal of software engineering experience.

Point blank: people read specifications differently.  What you (and I,
really) consider to be a defect, other people will read as being
completely in accordance with the RFC.  If you see a phrase that can be
interpreted in multiple ways, it's a guarantee that somewhere someone is
interpreting it in a way that you don't like.  A wise engineer is
someone who expects these alternate interpretations and is skeptical
about his/her own certitude of interpretation.

By all means, report the defect and make a case for your point of view.
 (Which you've done, and thank you.)  And if/when the maintainers mark
it as NOTABUG, then have the courtesy to thank them for their time and
move on.  Or else fork SKS and start your own codebase which fixes this
bug which you apparently find intolerable.

> I'm hoping for responses in similar good faith.

You have received responses in good faith.  They disagree with you.
That doesn't mean they're wrong or not made in good faith.