eap Mailing List: Re: [Issue 248] Comments on EAP state machine v4

[Florent Bersani (florent.bersani]

Nick all,

see in-line

Florent, who won't fight on wordsmithing ;-)

Nick Petroni wrote:

> Florent and all,
>
> As Monday 7/19 is the cut-off for document submission, I would like to ask
> for help in resolving as much of the remaining issues as possible in the
> state machine document. Here is a list of necessary changes as I see them
> for Issue 248. Please let me know how these look in principle and
> contribute text if possible. I also will attempt to contribute text over
> the next couple of days.
>
> Thanks,
> nick
>
>
>
> Comment #10 - Technical
>  - change the text of TIMEOUT_FAILURE in section 5.5 and
>    TIMEOUT_FAILURE2 in section 7.5 to the following:
>  "A final state indicating failure because no response has been
>   received. Because no response was received, no new message
>   (including failure) should be sent to the peer."
>  
Great!
Perhaps even a little bit that text by appending: "this is why this 
state needs to be distinct of the FAILURE state"

Florent Bersani wrote:

> Comment #10 - Technical
>
> Why include a separate TIMEOUT_FAILURE State? Why not use the FAILURE 
> state?