> The only way to avoid this would be for me to go out of my way to create > distinct grammar branches for *each declaration type*.
If you ever do that, don't forget to merge in the fudge stuff. -------- [Specifying nonsense options, like refid for a server.] > Considering that we're talking a quarter century of road miles...well, I'm > going to want to actually *see* a bug report like that before I incur the > complexity cost to prevent it. We could fix that by checking for silly options at your fancy copy-over stage. -------- >> My gut feel is that 'nts' can not be part of >> the 'pool' as then a casual attacker can break the system. > You might be right, but I'm not going to design on the assumption that you > are because the payoff matrix is too asymmetrical. Just because the current pool is untrustworthy doesn't mean that somebody couldn't run a trusted pool. Keep in mind that pool+nts isn't well specified yet. Do we want to get the info for several servers with one NTS-KE connection, or do we want to do the a DNS lookup to get several IP Addresses and then use separate NTS-KE connections with each of those addresses? -- These are my opinions. I hate spam. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@ntpsec.org http://lists.ntpsec.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
