On 2/1/19 11:34 AM, Eric S. Raymond wrote: > 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?
I wasn't personally arguing for a separate nts, so I'm not the one to make that case. I had originally proposed using server. I was just clarifying that it was not supposed to be server + nts. -- Richard _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@ntpsec.org http://lists.ntpsec.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
