A couple of small clarifications: > My thought is that we might wish to implement a special _authorization > database (or give it some flexible name similar to _users) that is not > under MVCC rules.
To be clear, all I mean by this is that whatever we call the db, you ought to be able to give it a different name in the configuration in the same way you can with the _users database. > In this scenario, a key in the _authorization database corresponds to > the _type. _authorization could use a naming convention to _users that > makes it special. Sorry this should have read: _authorization could use a similar naming convention to _users that makes it special.
