Subject: [bfcpbis] TBD issue #1: Subsequent

From: Tom Kristensen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 09:23:04 +0100

Minor issue. Anyway, here we go:

Gonzalo:
 > Sections 5.3.14 and 5.3.15 talk about acknowledging a "subsequent"
 > message. Why is it a subsequent message? Maybe we can delete that
 > word.

Tom:
| It is subsequent in that it's not the initial FloorRequestStatus
| acknowleding the associated FloorRequest. The word might not
| be needed in Sections 5.3.14 and 5.3.15, but I'll remove it just if
| it is really confusing!?!

Should it stay or should it go?

-- Tom

---

From: Gonzalo Camarillo <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 10:29:39 +0200

Hi Tom,

thanks for initiating the discussion on the points you identified in
your other email.

With respect to this one, the important issue is not whether or not we
keep "subsequent" in those sentences. The issue is that the text needs
to be clear about what it means. So, if you prefer to explain the
meaning of the sentence instead of removing the word, that would
certainly be OK.

Cheers,

Gonzalo

---

From: Tom Kristensen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 09:55:34 +0100

I see your point. I'll reread the text once more and find out what to do!

-- Tom