On 9/30/16, Gary E. Miller <g...@rellim.com> wrote: > So any upward extensible is fine, but trivial back-compatibility is > essential.
So what do you propose? We currently have insecure defaults. This must change, and *tautologically*, such a change necessarily involves breaking backward compatibility somewhere. I am proposing what I think is smallest and least invasive of all possible changes which achieve secure defaults. Do you disagree with this judgement? _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@ntpsec.org http://lists.ntpsec.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
