[bfcpbis] TBD issue #1: Subsequent
Tom Kristensen <tomkrist@cisco.com> Tue, 13 November 2012 08:23 UTC
Return-Path: <tomkrist@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: bfcpbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: bfcpbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B47E21F88F4 for <bfcpbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 00:23:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kE1rARUKLqwy for <bfcpbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 00:23:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ams-iport-3.cisco.com (ams-iport-3.cisco.com [144.254.224.146]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 261AD21F88E3 for <bfcpbis@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 00:23:06 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=482; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1352794986; x=1354004586; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: content-transfer-encoding; bh=Z4FPEkNpAdUHeaPddrnB5TZQTkvodE24frDirteJ5lM=; b=h8+X6nyLquwe5jvFYaOktQ0UeVQOKqiEpeRt2XNHLEquQNtW18qHHmYe 6W3gkxfPA3FEhVN++9t8yKmZoo8DQdb9gqMrwdbnz3+yRd5aeadpCc3zC RkZHHgEUWNpyc6sHsRNpif+lldv1pYU0ivMoestO+tuRvEkLdKyImSJEP U=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av0EAGgAolCQ/khM/2dsb2JhbABEw3OBCII3ASVAATwWGAMCAQIBSw0BBwEBHodomiCPZZA6knUDlXyFa4htgWuCcA
X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5400,1158,6894"; a="9526144"
Received: from ams-core-3.cisco.com ([144.254.72.76]) by ams-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 13 Nov 2012 08:23:05 +0000
Received: from [10.54.86.33] (dhcp-10-54-86-33.cisco.com [10.54.86.33]) by ams-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id qAD8N4Sk023288; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 08:23:05 GMT
Message-ID: <50A20368.9050408@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 09:23:04 +0100
From: Tom Kristensen <tomkrist@cisco.com>
Organization: Cisco
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.1.15) Gecko/20101027 Fedora/3.0.10-1.fc12 Lightning/1.0b2pre Thunderbird/3.0.10
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: BFCPbis WG <bfcpbis@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com>
Subject: [bfcpbis] TBD issue #1: Subsequent
X-BeenThere: bfcpbis@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: BFCPBIS working group discussion list <bfcpbis.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/bfcpbis>, <mailto:bfcpbis-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/bfcpbis>
List-Post: <mailto:bfcpbis@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bfcpbis-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bfcpbis>, <mailto:bfcpbis-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 08:23:08 -0000
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
- [bfcpbis] TBD issue #1: Subsequent Tom Kristensen
- Re: [bfcpbis] TBD issue #1: Subsequent Gonzalo Camarillo
- Re: [bfcpbis] TBD issue #1: Subsequent Tom Kristensen
- Re: [bfcpbis] TBD issue #1: Subsequent Tom Kristensen
- Re: [bfcpbis] TBD issue #1: Subsequent Charles Eckel (eckelcu)