Jesse Haka

``` type Authorization struct { Deny []Policy `json:"deny,omitempty"` Allow []Policy `json:"allow,omitempty"` Log []Policy `json:"log,omitempty"` } ``` in which order these are going to be applied? it might be issue? or...

hmm it could work in that case, if its possible to implement like that

the problem might be that both controllers are listening SecurityPolicy and its changes. However, it should filter according targetRef "is this my task" or not. If I shutdown that another...

@arkodg could you help me little bit. I was investigating this and change https://github.com/zetaab/gateway/commit/f83a3e9efdf2647f280ed52711a43a08d7fd0005 makes it already work like should. However, there might be race condition if the controllers will...

but that also says: ``` // Note also that implementations MUST ONLY populate ancestor status for // the Ancestor resources they are responsible for. ``` so basically the another controller...

I added this to my jwt path and trying to figure out why it is not working: ``` % egctl config envoy-proxy listener -l gateway.envoyproxy.io/owning-gateway-name=internal > listener error: proto: (line...

sorry, forgot to compile newest egctl. With newest egctl I can dump the configuration. However, the JWT based routing does not work with the PR which added clear_route_cache to JWT....

well at least I have use case that same gateway should be apple to serve clients from the internet, but some routes need to have allow/deny ip setting.

@zinuga I have been implementing the api design for this in https://github.com/envoyproxy/gateway/pull/2652 its pretty fast implement after the api design is accepted.

@arkodg any comments to this one? As I see this is quite important feature to have possibility to use service with human users and machines.