Re: [bfcpbis] TBD issue #1: Subsequent

[Tom Kristensen <[e-mail]>]

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

-- Tom

On 11/13/2012 09:29 AM, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote:
> 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
>
>
> On 13/11/2012 10:23 AM, Tom Kristensen wrote:
>    
>> 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
>>      
>