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"
|NO SCE||NO SCE||no|| no
|NO SCE||SCE||no|| yes
|SCE||NO SCE||yes|| no
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.