Re: Miscellany
Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr> Tue, 09 January 2007 22:17 UTC
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H4PHM-0000FP-AI; Tue, 09 Jan 2007 17:17:12 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H4PHK-0000FI-Rz for cosmogol@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Jan 2007 17:17:10 -0500
Received: from virtual3.netaktiv.com ([80.67.170.53] helo=mail.bortzmeyer.org) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H4PHJ-00076c-Js for cosmogol@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Jan 2007 17:17:10 -0500
Received: by mail.bortzmeyer.org (Postfix, from userid 10) id EBDF3240822; Tue, 9 Jan 2007 23:17:08 +0100 (CET)
Received: by mail.sources.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 828C211B4A; Tue, 9 Jan 2007 23:14:30 +0100 (CET)
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2007 23:14:30 +0100
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
To: "Clive D.W. Feather" <clive@demon.net>
Message-ID: <20070109221430.GD28340@sources.org>
References: <20070108164305.GB66689@finch-staff-1.thus.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20070108164305.GB66689@finch-staff-1.thus.net>
X-Transport: UUCP rules
X-Operating-System: Debian GNU/Linux 3.1
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i
X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 856eb5f76e7a34990d1d457d8e8e5b7f
Cc: IETF Cosmogol list <cosmogol@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Miscellany
X-BeenThere: cosmogol@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: DIscussion on state machine specification in IETF protocols <cosmogol.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cosmogol>, <mailto:cosmogol-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/cosmogol>
List-Post: <mailto:cosmogol@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cosmogol-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cosmogol>, <mailto:cosmogol-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: cosmogol-bounces@ietf.org
On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 04:43:05PM +0000, Clive D.W. Feather <clive@demon.net> wrote a message of 60 lines which said: > I'm not sure what the difference is between "Initial" and a start > state. The very first version called them "start state", indeed. But it also called the current state the start state, which was confusing. In the present version of the draft, "start" disappeared. One of the reasons is that it is common for an actual state in a FSM to be named "Start". > Similarly, why is "must be complete" only a command-line option? > Better would be: > - allow the definition of the machine to say "must be complete"; Yes, it would be more consistent with Initial and Final. _______________________________________________ Cosmogol mailing list Cosmogol@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cosmogol
- Miscellany Clive D.W. Feather
- Re: Miscellany Stephane Bortzmeyer