Details

    • Type: Bug
    • Status: Resolved
    • Priority: Major
    • Resolution: Fixed
    • Affects Version/s: soleconn-WD2
    • Fix Version/s: soleconn-WD3
    • Component/s: Sole Connection
    • Labels:
      None

      Description

      I find Section 3.2.2 of the specification unclear.
      To wrap my brain around the rules and when a certain detection policy would trigger the enforement policy I consider 4 cases: an existing connection does/doesn't have sole connction enforement (SCE) permutated with the new connection having/not having SCE.
      Then my reading of the spec gives me this table:

      old conn new conn "strong" "weak"
      1
      NO SCE NO SCE no no
      2
      NO SCE SCE no yes
      3
      SCE NO SCE yes no
      4
      SCE SCE yes yes

      Do people agree with my reading of the spec?
      Was it intended this way?

      In the "strong" case I find the asymmetry between case 2 and 3 surprising.
      I find it surprising that the weak policy should trigger in case 2 where the "strong" policy does not.
      My guess is that the intention was that the strong policy also triggers in case 2.

      Overall, I find it hard to see a clear intention behind the two detectoin policies.

        Attachments

          Activity

            People

            • Assignee:
              lorenz.quack Lorenz Quack [X] (Inactive)
              Reporter:
              lorenz.quack Lorenz Quack [X] (Inactive)
            • Watchers:
              3 Start watching this issue

              Dates

              • Created:
                Updated:
                Resolved: