Replying to differenet mails:
now what of abstract sockets? They are the same as unix domain but
begin with \0. We could use this notation or chose an alternate way
of expressing it.
network unix name=\0foo,
or maybe
network unix abstract=foo,
Use an @, ie.
network unix
On 07/10/2013 04:35 AM, Ángel González wrote:
Replying to differenet mails:
now what of abstract sockets? They are the same as unix domain but
begin with \0. We could use this notation or chose an alternate way
of expressing it.
network unix name=\0foo,
or maybe
network unix
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 01:35:35PM +0200, Ángel González wrote:
Replying to differenet mails:
now what of abstract sockets? They are the same as unix domain but
begin with \0. We could use this notation or chose an alternate way
of expressing it.
network unix name=\0foo,
or maybe
So it turns out we are going to need to support policy versioning (Christian
can gloat now). The question because how we support it
We are looking at 2 different options
1. we support a version tag in files, with the tag required to be on each
file including any include.
When the parser
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 02:18:22PM -0700, John Johansen wrote:
So it turns out we are going to need to support policy versioning (Christian
can gloat now). The question because how we support it
I'm pretty sure I've seen a matrix somewhere that described the different
mediation semantics and
On 07/10/2013 04:18 PM, John Johansen wrote:
So it turns out we are going to need to support policy versioning (Christian
can gloat now). The question because how we support it
We are looking at 2 different options
1. we support a version tag in files, with the tag required to be on each
On 07/10/2013 02:51 PM, Seth Arnold wrote:
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 02:18:22PM -0700, John Johansen wrote:
So it turns out we are going to need to support policy versioning (Christian
can gloat now). The question because how we support it
I'm pretty sure I've seen a matrix somewhere that
