Re: [Sks-devel] New Debian Binary Replacement

[David Benfell]

On 05/18/2012 02:52 PM, Jeffrey Johnson wrote:
> 
> And wouldn't patience to see whether there actually
> is a SKS fork, with a need to specify forked version pool acceptance
> criteria, perhaps with administrative delegation to inter-continental
> and inter-national naming authorities, registered/distributed through DNS,
> with creepy-toe certificate compliance, and more … wouldn't
> a bit of patience be more prudent than this continued stoopid thread?

I'm not sure what DNS has to do with this. But unless this fork is
(assuming it comes to pass) going to establish its own keyserver pool
separate from the current SKS, it is obviously going to have to work
with existing servers. It seems to me self-evident that whether a new
pool were created or not (and nothing I've seen suggests that it would
be) that it would be best for all concerned if keyservers are compatible
with each other.

That said, your point about expecting people who are already pissed to
comply with directives about the form a fork should take seems apropos.
A false claim to authority can only make matters worse.

-- 
David Benfell
address@hidden