On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 6:16 PM, Chris Darroch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Finally there was a certain amount of bike-shed re-painting in >>> the form of renaming configuration directives. I settled on >>> Match, <MatchAll>, etc. based on Eric Covener's comments.
I had meant iif containers are used, I'd like their name to communicate the "require" or "reject" part while the authz providers would be "match"-like (because the Require on the inside is confusing when surrounted by all the variations) I do agree that all the way down the authz/aa nature of the directives/containers needs to remain clear. I haven't been able to get past the negaqted containers to revisit how this all works in trunk. -- Eric Covener [EMAIL PROTECTED]
