NTS client configuration support has landed

[Achim Gratz]

Gary E. Miller via devel writes:
>> No, in fact my expectation is that the ntpsec implementation should
>> support an NTS pool.
>
> Which does not exist, and will take years for an RFC to create.

Well, you tell me why it absolutely needs another (or changed) RFC.  As
I said before, while changes and additions would be nice in certain
places, I've yet to see any requirement that can't be met.

>> > Keep in mind that pool+nts isn't well specified yet.  
>> 
>> I agree, but it's specified well enough to work.
>
> Ah, no.  Use the current pool with NTS and you blow away all the advantages
> of NTS.  Don't go there.

You are blowing smoke again.  If you won't or can't lay out your
argument (which you very well may have), then you're not going to
convince anyone with various appeals to higher authority, history or
whatever your logical fallacy du jour is.

So again, the current RFC clearly gives you enough rope to tie a bow
around an NTS implementation that does support an NTS pool.  That the
likely result doesn't look like what you expect or would have done
(which you have yet to explain in sufficient detail for anyone else to
follow) isn't proof that it doesn't exist.  That doesn#t mean that there
won't be any lose ends, but that's for the PoC implementation to
corroborate.


Regards,
Achim.
-- 
+<[Q+ Matrix-12 WAVE#46+305 Neuron microQkb Andromeda XTk Blofeld]>+

Samples for the Waldorf Blofeld:
http://Synth.Stromeko.net/Downloads.html#BlofeldSamplesExtra