Re: [bfcpbis] TBD issue #1: Subsequent

[Gonzalo Camarillo <[e-mail]>]

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