Re: State machine / failure detection / rehoming support

[Brian E Carpenter <brc@zurich.ibm.com>]

Joel M. Halpern wrote:

(much good sense deleted)

> At the same time, I have real trouble separating the finite state 
> machine of the protocol (as opposed to the states seen by the shim6
> user) from the definition of the protocol.

Yes, I certainly don't mean it's easy to do. And maybe what needs
to be separate is that external view of the states, rather than
the fully specified FSM, which I agree is tightly bound to the
protocol.

   Brian