| A (last?) remark on the EAP state machine | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
From: Florent Bersani (florent.bersani rd.francetelecom.fr)
|
|
| Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 03:21:02 -0400 (EDT) | |
Hi,
Many apologies for the fragmented and late feedback on the EAP state machine.
This one is surely a matter of taste - and is related to comment #7 I made in http://mail.frascone.com/pipermail/public/eap/2004-June/002523.html
I don't understand why the EAP peer state machine uses two different procedures to "process" the EAP packet: m.process and m.BuildResp?
Wouldn't it be simpler to use only one procedure and write something like:
(methodState,decision,allowNotifications,eapRespData)=m.process(eapReqData)
Many apologies for the fragmented and late feedback on the EAP state machine.
This one is surely a matter of taste - and is related to comment #7 I made in http://mail.frascone.com/pipermail/public/eap/2004-June/002523.html
I don't understand why the EAP peer state machine uses two different procedures to "process" the EAP packet: m.process and m.BuildResp?
Wouldn't it be simpler to use only one procedure and write something like:
(methodState,decision,allowNotifications,eapRespData)=m.process(eapReqData)
BR, Florent
- (no other messages in thread)
Results generated by Tiger Technologies using MHonArc.