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

[Robert J. Hansen]

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.