Gary said: > Yes, it is confisuing, that is why there way a proposal for a different > syntax that Eric vetoed. You are making the exact mistake we foresaw. This > will contoinue with the current syntax.
Thanks. Now that I understand the ideas, I'll see if I can clean up the wording. > Uh, no. Just the NTS-KE server name. The default NTP server name is > whatever the NTS-KE server returns. That is the Proposed RFC. That is optional. >From 4.1.7, page 12 When NTPv4 is negotiated as a Next Protocol and this record is sent by the server, the body specifies the hostname or IP address of the NTPv4 server with which the client should associate and which will accept the supplied cookies. If no record of this type is sent, the client SHALL interpret this as a directive to associate with an NTPv4 server at the same IP address as the NTS-KE server. Servers MUST NOT send more than one record of this type. -- These are my opinions. I hate spam. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@ntpsec.org http://lists.ntpsec.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
