Failure of comparison of valid pub key's .asc files

[JB]

Peter Lebbing <peter <at> digitalbrains.com> writes:

> ...
> This is also why the exported .asc files are different: the version on the
> keyserver has an additional signature that the one on thr web page did not
have.
> That's it, that's all there is to it!
> ...

Thanks for your clarifications.

One more thing.
> $ gpg --check-sigs C65285EC
> gpg: 2 good signatures
> gpg: 1 signature not checked due to a missing key
> pub   rsa2048/C65285EC 2015-03-15 [SC]
> uid         [ unknown] trava90 <travawine at protonmail.com>
> sig!3        C65285EC 2015-03-15  trava90 <travawine at protonmail.com>
> sub   rsa2048/25192F9F 2015-03-15 [E]
> sig!         C65285EC 2015-03-15  trava90 <travawine at protonmail.com>

W/r to above display, would it not be better to display the line(s) with
the unverified signature and the missing key in response, so that I could
have a clue which user(s) certified the key and who I was missing on my
ring ?
As you can see from my key server lookups, the pgp.mit.edu was useless in
this regard, only sks-keyservers.net gave me a hint who I was missing.

Like this:
$ gpg --check-sigs C65285EC
gpg: 2 good signatures
gpg: 1 signature not checked due to a missing key
pub   rsa2048/C65285EC 2015-03-15 [SC]
uid         [ unknown] trava90 <travawine at protonmail.com>
sig!3        C65285EC 2015-03-15  trava90 <travawine at protonmail.com>
sig%3        8FCF9CEC 2015-05-16  Moonchild (RSA signing key)
<moonchild at palemoon.org>
sub   rsa2048/25192F9F 2015-03-15 [E]
sig!         C65285EC 2015-03-15  trava90 <travawine at protonmail.com>

where the missing key line(s) like this would be included:
sig%3        8FCF9CEC 2015-05-16  Moonchild (RSA signing key)
<moonchild at palemoon.org>

The status could be e.g. "%" char to denote an error as defined in:
gpg(1)
      --check-sigs
        ...

Do you think it makes sense to request an enhancement ?
jb