Re: BoF session in Prague "Formal State Machines"

Hannes Tschofenig <Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net> Tue, 06 February 2007 09:09 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HEMKE-0000EN-Qq; Tue, 06 Feb 2007 04:09:18 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HEMKD-0000EH-KB for cosmogol@ietf.org; Tue, 06 Feb 2007 04:09:17 -0500
Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HEMKC-0001eH-3d for cosmogol@ietf.org; Tue, 06 Feb 2007 04:09:17 -0500
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 06 Feb 2007 09:09:13 -0000
Received: from socks1.netz.sbs.de (EHLO [192.35.17.26]) [192.35.17.26] by mail.gmx.net (mp038) with SMTP; 06 Feb 2007 10:09:13 +0100
X-Authenticated: #29516787
Message-ID: <45C845B5.7050201@gmx.net>
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2007 10:09:09 +0100
From: Hannes Tschofenig <Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0b2 (Windows/20070116)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
References: <20070205202703.GB1731@sources.org>
In-Reply-To: <20070205202703.GB1731@sources.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 769a46790fb42fbb0b0cc700c82f7081
Cc: cosmogol@ietf.org
Subject: Re: BoF session in Prague "Formal State Machines"
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

Hi Stephane,

I worked on a couple of documents that contain a state machine. For 
example,

QoS NSLP State Machine
http://tools.ietf.org/wg/nsis/draft-fu-nsis-qos-nslp-statemachine-05.txt
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-fu-nsis-qos-nslp-statemachine-05.pdf

NATFW NSLP State Machine
http://tools.ietf.org/wg/nsis/draft-werner-nsis-natfw-nslp-statemachine-03.txt

GIST State Machine
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-nsis-ntlp-statemachine-02.txt

I worked on these documents to make it easier to quickly produce a 
compliant implementation.
I have received good feedback from implementers telling me that it 
helped them a lot.

We tried to use the language introduced by the EAP state machine: 
http://tools.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4137.txt

What is difficult with the work is the lack of tool support to produce 
the PDF version of the document (or a text version from the PDF).

Why should I re-write my documents to comply to a more formal state 
machine description?

Ciao
Hannes

Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> The AD just approved the BoF session in IETF 68 in Prague:
>
> "Formal State Machines"
>
> http://www1.tools.ietf.org/bof/trac/wiki
>
> See you in Prague to discuss requirments, specifications, and Unicode
> characters in identifiers :-)
>
> _______________________________________________
> Cosmogol mailing list
> Cosmogol@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cosmogol
>   


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