David Bustos wrote: > 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. > >
I'll update the ARC case, the svc.ipfd.1m, with the suggested information. -tony
