diff options
author | brian <brian@FreeBSD.org> | 1999-03-01 02:52:39 +0000 |
---|---|---|
committer | brian <brian@FreeBSD.org> | 1999-03-01 02:52:39 +0000 |
commit | 57b9785287124e53b58a5857d114a7f340c6ba17 (patch) | |
tree | 7e785ea5b87f977a8e68b6eac35b68a69e5ec6cc /gnu/usr.bin/binutils/libopcodes/Makefile | |
parent | 5cd949a10fcf86708415f78417f64f3b5c9f4501 (diff) | |
download | FreeBSD-src-57b9785287124e53b58a5857d114a7f340c6ba17.zip FreeBSD-src-57b9785287124e53b58a5857d114a7f340c6ba17.tar.gz |
Comment why we do a TLF when we get a ``Down'' event in state
``closing''.
Pointed out by: archie
Don't do a TLF when we get a ``Catastrphic Protocol Reject'' event
in state ``closed'' or ``stopped''.
Pointed out but not suggested by: archie
This makes no difference in the current implementation as
LcpLayerFinish() does nothing but log the event, but I disagree
in principle because it unbalances the TLF/TLS calls which
(IMHO) doesn't fit with the intentions of the RFC.
Maybe the RFC author had a reason for this. It can only happen
in two circumstances:
- if LCP has already been negotiated then stopped or closed and we
receive a protocol reject, then we must already have done a TLF.
Why do one again and stay in the same state ?
- if LCP hasn't yet been started and we receive an unsolicted
protocol reject, why should we TLF when we haven't done a TLS ?
Diffstat (limited to 'gnu/usr.bin/binutils/libopcodes/Makefile')
0 files changed, 0 insertions, 0 deletions