Minor reword of the previous commit

Author: javiereguiluz

security/access_control.rst

@@ -23,7 +23,7 @@ access control should be used on this request. The following ``access_control``
 options are used for matching:
 
 * ``path``
-* ``ip`` or ``ips`` (netmask is supported)
+* ``ip`` or ``ips`` (netmasks are also supported)
 * ``host``
 * ``methods``
 
@@ -176,6 +176,7 @@ pattern so that it is only accessible by requests from the local server itself:
             # ...
             access_control:
                 #
+                # the 'ips' option supports IP addresses and subnet masks
                 - { path: ^/internal, roles: IS_AUTHENTICATED_ANONYMOUSLY, ips: [127.0.0.1, ::1, 192.168.0.1/24] }
                 - { path: ^/internal, roles: ROLE_NO_ACCESS }
 
@@ -191,6 +192,7 @@ pattern so that it is only accessible by requests from the local server itself:
 
             <config>
                 <!-- ... -->
+                <!-- the 'ips' option supports IP addresses and subnet masks -->
                 <rule path="^/internal"
                     role="IS_AUTHENTICATED_ANONYMOUSLY"
                     ips="127.0.0.1, ::1, 192.168.0.1/24"
@@ -209,6 +211,7 @@ pattern so that it is only accessible by requests from the local server itself:
                 array(
                     'path' => '^/internal',
                     'role' => 'IS_AUTHENTICATED_ANONYMOUSLY',
+                    // the 'ips' option supports IP addresses and subnet masks
                     'ips' => '127.0.0.1, ::1, 192.168.0.1/24',
                 ),
                 array(
@@ -239,8 +242,6 @@ address):
 
 * The second access rule is not examined as the first rule matched.
 
-IP netmask is supported. You can write ``ip`` or ``ips`` with ``192.168.0.1/24`` or ``192.168.0.1/32``.
-
 .. _security-allow-if:
 
 Securing by an Expression