Subject: SState machines

From: "Charles E. Perkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 11:51:06 -0500 (EST)

Ted Lemon wrote:

> Transactions are ephemeral, so I don't see how you can associate state
> machines with them.   Am I misunderstanding what you are saying here?

No, you hit the nail right on the head.  That's exactly why the state
machine should be associated with the transaction, and that is what
was the problem when I had trouble with state machines.  It was that
they were too permanent, having too many global effects.

I like it that when a transaction is done, the state machine managing
the control messages associated with that transaction would disappear.

>                                     I suppose that given that in
> DHCPv6 the server can initiate a transaction, the transaction ID by
> itself couldn't be used to associate a given transaction to a given
> state machine.

But if the state machine is associated with the transaction ID, and
the transaction is completed, the state machine should be completed
(or else be considered as resting in the final, terminal state).

Regards,
Charlie P.