Re: Syntax of transitions

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