Subject: RE: [midcom] Semantics #5: Split PER transaction

From: "Tom-PT Taylor" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 09:49:28 -0500

Since these are semantics we're talking about, that might be a good idea:
separate operations reflecting the different state transitions involved.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Stiemerling [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 7:08 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [midcom] Semantics #5: Split PER transaction
> 
> 
> Currently the state transitions in the policy rule state machine from
> - PRID UNUSED to ENABLED
> - RESERVED to ENABLED
> 'using' the same PER transaction.
> If you take a look into the semantics draft you will 
> recognize that the 
> PER for the RESERVED to ENABLED transition doesn't need all the 
> parameters as the PER for UNUSED to ENABLED does need.
> So it would make sense to separate them both into two different 
> transactions:
> PER1 for RESERVED to ENABLED
> PER2 for PRID UNUSED to ENABLED
> (The names PER1 and PER2 are just for the first clarification!)
> 
> This would significantly simplify the semantics for the PER 
> transaction.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> midcom mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/midcom
> 
_______________________________________________
midcom mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/midcom