Richard Laager via devel <devel@ntpsec.org>:
> On 2/1/19 9:19 AM, Eric S. Raymond via devel wrote:
> > Having a separate nts config statement would have required admins to
> > enter the name of a server to which secure connection is intended
> > twice, once in the server declaration and once in the nts declaration.
> > This was suboptimal design, inviting subtle configuration bugs due to
> > typos.
>
> I don't know what was in nts.adoc, but the proposal on the list was
> certainly that NTS associations used _only_ nts, not server + nts.
Yes. Gary journaled that to nts.adoc.
If there's a good semantic reason to have a separate nts statement, I
can do that. But I don't presently know of one. A request for secure time
service has to reference an NTP server, yes?
--
<a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/";>Eric S. Raymond</a>
My work is funded by the Internet Civil Engineering Institute: https://icei.org
Please visit their site and donate: the civilization you save might be your own.
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@ntpsec.org
http://lists.ntpsec.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
