Re: Syntax of transitions

Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de> Wed, 10 January 2007 22:37 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H4m4Y-0006b7-KC; Wed, 10 Jan 2007 17:37:30 -0500
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H4m4X-0006b2-LQ for cosmogol@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Jan 2007 17:37:29 -0500
Received: from main.gmane.org ([80.91.229.2] helo=ciao.gmane.org) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H4m4V-0000DC-Vd for cosmogol@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Jan 2007 17:37:29 -0500
Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1H4m4J-0005cI-TT for cosmogol@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Jan 2007 23:37:15 +0100
Received: from du-001-151.access.de.clara.net ([212.82.227.151]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for <cosmogol@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Jan 2007 23:37:15 +0100
Received: from nobody by du-001-151.access.de.clara.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for <cosmogol@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Jan 2007 23:37:15 +0100
X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/
To: cosmogol@ietf.org
From: Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de>
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 23:36:01 +0100
Organization: <URL:http://purl.net/xyzzy>
Lines: 24
Message-ID: <45A56A51.2874@xyzzy.claranet.de>
References: <20070108162900.GA66689@finch-staff-1.thus.net> <20070109221042.GC28340@sources.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org
X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: du-001-151.access.de.clara.net
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U)
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 9182cfff02fae4f1b6e9349e01d62f32
Subject: Re: Syntax of transitions
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

Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:

>> is there any reason to forbid multiple actions?

> No, no good reasons, and protocols like SIP or SCTP
> really need multiple actions.

A good reason would be KISS, you can split sequential
actions using intermediary states, and you want the
states written into lines with 69 characters.

But if the actions are simultaneously, or their order
is irrelevant it's less clear.  If some of the actions
(almost) always occur together you could get away with
named sets of states.

Maybe introducing named sets of either states, or
messsages, or actions makes sense.  With that you'd
get "state or named set of states", "message or named
set of messages", and "action or named set of actions",
and a general concept of named sets.  Is that better ?

Frank



_______________________________________________
Cosmogol mailing list
Cosmogol@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cosmogol