Re: BoF session in Prague "Formal State Machines"

[Hannes Tschofenig <Hannes.Tschofenig at gmx.net>]

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 at ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cosmogol
>   


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