docs(server): record IPv6 zone identity as project policy
Endpoint identity documented the IPv6 scope identifier as an established component alongside family, address and port. The server specification does list the zone, but its remaining-unknowns section records that multi-zone behavior could not be tested on a single-host platform, so no evidence settles how a reference server compares scoped addresses. Presenting the choice as verified compatibility overstated what is known, which the crate's own guidance forbids. Say what it is instead: a deliberate policy taken under a recorded unknown. Two peers reachable at the same link-local address in different zones are genuinely different peers, so treating the zone as identity is the conservative reading — the failure it prevents is one peer closing another's session, and the failure it risks is a scoped client having to reopen. The excluded flow label is labelled the same way, and `irtt-server` guidance now carries the rule so the echo slice reuses this comparison rather than inventing a second one. Behavior is unchanged; this is documentation and a test comment.
This commit is contained in:
4 files changed
+48
-15
No files matched your search
@@ -91,8 +91,11 @@ fn an_echo_after_a_close_is_a_stale_token() {
|
||||
|
||||
#[test]
|
||||
fn a_close_from_any_other_endpoint_leaves_the_session_live() {
|
||||
// Endpoint identity is exact: family, address, UDP source port and IPv6
|
||||
// scope all count. Possessing the token is not authority to close.
|
||||
// Possessing the token is not authority to close. The first four pairs
|
||||
// differ in an established identity component; the last differs only in
|
||||
// IPv6 zone, which is `irtt-rs` policy rather than observed behavior — see
|
||||
// `same_endpoint`. It is pinned so the choice cannot drift silently, not
|
||||
// because evidence settled it.
|
||||
for (bound, foreign) in [
|
||||
("198.51.100.7:41234", "198.51.100.7:41235"),
|
||||
("198.51.100.7:41234", "198.51.100.9:41234"),
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in new issue
Block a user