NTS client configuration support has landed

[Eric S. Raymond]

Hal Murray via devel <devel at ntpsec.org>:
> 
> Gary said:
> > *ask [address]...
> > *require [address]...
> ...
> > More to come, but I'd rather not get too far ahead, as what I had thought was
> > consensus has disappeared. 
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Those are all interesting, but I was more interested in the 
>   nts foo
> vs
>   server foo nts
> part of the discussion.
> 
> Which one is preferable and why?

Long mail heading your way on this topic, but the TL;DR is that
it needs to be "server foo nts" in case we ever need to have a pool
nts flag (which I think is likely).

The nonorthogonality of one nts declaration head versus one option
flag, when it could have been two similar option flags, would
be too ugly to live.
-- 
		<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.