The end of the beginning is in sight

[Hal Murray]

> > That sounds uncomfortably plausible.  I can think of a workaround: add a
> > padding extension long enough that the packet can't have any of the magic
> > lengths. 
> I've read that.  I've even implemented it myself once, in the Python
> protocol back end.  Is there advice in there that I missed on how to avoid
> magic-length interactions? 

It has a couple of minimum length constraints.  I think those are enough to 
avoid the screwup cases.

Mostly, I pointed it out to show the complexities of that area, at least with 
the current setup.  There may be room for something like NTPv4.1 which drops 
compatibility with the old stuff that caused problems since it is rarely used.


-- 
These are my opinions.  I hate spam.