Re: 68 - minimal conformance requirements

Jari Arkko wrote:

>Here's a proposed text change:
>
>   Note that both peers can have their own policies about what addresses
>   are acceptable to use.  A minimal "mobile client" could have a policy
>   that says that only the responder's address specified in local
>   configuration is acceptable.  This kind of client does not have to
>   send or process ADDITIONAL_*_ADDRESS notifications.  Similarly, a
>   simple "VPN gateway" that has only a single address, and is not going
>   to change it, does not need to send or understand
>   ADDITIONAL_*_ADDRESS notifications.
>
>=>
>
>   Note that a node that has only a single address at any given time
>   does not need to send ADDITIONAL_*_ADDRESS notifications, but
>   all nodes that support this specification must understand the reception
>   of such notifications. However, nodes MAY have their own policies
>   about what addresses are acceptable to used.
>  
>
I noticed that Section 6.5 also has some text on this.
Aligning the above proposal with that:

   Note that a node that has only a single address at any given time
   does not need to send ADDITIONAL_*_ADDRESS notifications, but
   all nodes that support this specification must understand the reception
   of such notifications. However, nodes MAY have their own policies
   about what local or peer addresses are acceptable. One possible
   policy on a client is that it refuses to talk to other gateway
   addresses than the configured one. This policy would imply that
   it should ignore peer's additional addresses, and, since it is
   the initiator, it does not need to send its own additional addresses
   as it will be in charge of all address changes in any case.

--Jari