Thank you to each of you who have shared your thoughts and voted. To make
things official, after a week I'm calling the vote with 4 in favor of
renaming the actions and 1 opposed. I'll finish up the draft PR and mark it
as ready for review.
On Mon, Jul 29, 2024 at 2:13 PM Matthew Williams
wrote
Thanks Matty for the request for clarification:
ATS 10.0.0 will correctly parse set_allow and set_deny, but by default
(using the configuration that you and Masaori worked on), it will not fail
if allow/deny is used. If the "modern" behavior configuration is set
(non-default), then allow/deny will
I’d vote for 2. Rename them and we can make the allow/deny actions a syntax
error so they get caught early.
Something I wasn’t clear on, Can you confirm that this is planned for ATS 11 or
10.x - not the upcoming release of 10?
Matt
On 2024/07/22 17:44:27 Brian Neradt wrote:
> Hi dev@trafficser
I’ll vote for 2 but I’ll survive with 1 as well.
2 has the benefit of allowing us to make the old verbs a syntax error in
v11 rather than semantically change their behavior causing unexpected
problems.
— Leif
On Mon, Jul 29, 2024 at 11:42 Bryan Call wrote:
> +1 for 1. Keep the allow/deny actio
+1 for 1. Keep the allow/deny action names.
-Bryan
> On Jul 22, 2024, at 10:44 AM, Brian Neradt wrote:
>
> Hi dev@trafficserver.apache.org,
>
> We're processing through ACL filter action names for 10.x. For context, for
> 9.x and before, these are how actions behave for ip_allow.yaml rules a
