Quoth Tony Nguyen on Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 05:38:47PM -0700: > Ah, my earlier statement was not accurate. "isrpc" and "name" > properties should exist in either inetd or firewall_context but not both > since they have equivalent semantics. Exclusive existence is not > currently enforced as only inetd services has "inetd" pg. > firewall_context pg can certainly exist for inetd service to specify a > ipf_method, custom rule generation script. Do you feel more comfortable > if we document the mentioned order in the case where service developer > deliver the properties in both property groups?
I think you should document that firewall_context/isprc and /name are not necessary for inetd services, and when they exist, either the behavior is undefined or one will be given precedence. David
