The following reply was made to PR bin/10206; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Elad Efrat <elad@NetBSD.org>
To: Alan Barrett <apb@cequrux.com>
Cc: tech-security@NetBSD.org, gnats-bugs@NetBSD.org
Subject: Re: security/10206 - proposed solution (concept)
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 06:58:02 +0300

 Alan Barrett wrote:
 
 > Actually, the prohibited/optional/required status could just be implied
 > by the numeric ranges, but then you'd have to use "0 means 0", not "0
 > means infinity".  For example, "upper: 0" could mean "prohibited";
 > "upper: 1-*" could mean "1 or more required"; "upper: 1-3" could mean
 > "at least 1, but no more than 3"; "upper: 0-*" could mean "any number,
 > zero or more".
 
 Yes, but then we'd lose a bit of the readability. This is hardly
 time-critical code, and in fact should be very clear to the admin as to
 what the configuration means.
 
 I can change the range syntax, though.
 
 -e.
 
 -- 
 Elad Efrat
 PGP Key ID: 0x666EB914