Rowain Wrote:It would be if B keeps the MDP secret. But if A signs NAP with B and B signs MDP with C and announces it so that everyone knows attacking C would be considered a wardecl on B too then it is plain simple A's fault if he attacks C.
With the announcement of the MDP it becomes clear to everybody that any attack on C is also an attack on B.
I disagree. B is unilaterally introducing new conditions to the NAP (do not attack C). They can't do that, that is equivalent to prematurely cancelling the NAP.
I have to run.