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