Re: [Sks-devel] About deleting keys

[David Benfell]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 10/29/2013 05:01 AM, Arnold wrote:
> 
> I also once played with the thought to only store the hash and key
> fingerprint in the database to satisfy database equality. But, once
> you update the hash from server A, then server B (not peering with
> A and then with an outdated hash), will keep requesting the key
> associated with the new hash that you cannot provide. This will
> continue, unless server B also replaces the outdated key with the
> new hash only, effectively also deleting the key which we concluded
> before is undesirable...

Just to make this hairier, would it not be the case that any solution
to this problem would create an even more severe problem for
reconciliation between older and newer versions of SKS than we have
now with <=1.1.1 and >1.1.1?

- -- 
David Benfell
see https://parts-unknown.org/node/2 if you don't understand the
attachment
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
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=610s
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

benfell.vcf
Description: Vcard