| Re: [Issue 250] Two more issues from the state machine | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
|
From: Florent Bersani (florent.bersani |
|
| Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2004 03:25:54 -0400 (EDT) | |
Hi Nick,
Nick Petroni wrote:
I should have proposed some text :-( - thanks for doing it!
BR,
Florent
Nick Petroni wrote:
Looks good to me.Issue #TBC
Submitter name: Florent Bersani
Submitter email address: florent.bersani [at] rd.francetelecom.fr
Date first submitted: 06/25/2004
Document: Document Requiring change State Machine
Comment type: E
Priority: '1' Should fix
Rationale/Explanation of issue: allowMethod is not defined in the document IINM but is used in figure 3
Requested change: define it
I propose to add the following to section 4.4
"allowMethod()
Determine if it is allowable for the peer to perform the proposd
method. This decision may be based on policy and/or implementation
support for the proposed method."
I should have proposed some text :-( - thanks for doing it!
BR,
Florent
-
Two more issues from the state machine Florent Bersani, June 25 2004
-
Re: [Issue 250] Two more issues from the state machine Nick Petroni, July 8 2004
- Re: [Issue 250] Two more issues from the state machine Florent Bersani, July 9 2004
-
Re: [Issue 250] Two more issues from the state machine Nick Petroni, July 8 2004
Results generated by Tiger Technologies using MHonArc.