Re: ISSUE-161: Discussion of semantics and alternatives to "!" (was: Batch closing)

> On 12/04/2013 17:03, David Wainberg wrote:
>> Hi Matthias,
>> On 161, the "!" signal, while we do seem to have consensus on the signal, I do not believe we have reached consensus on the precise meaning or the language describing it in the spec. Therefore, the issue should remain open.
>> -David

I believe that David's concerns have been fully addressed in the
editors' draft.  Jonathan's have not because they cannot be
addressed in a protocol (only in some legal or regulatory framework
which is not our concern).


Received on Wednesday, 17 April 2013 06:04:11 UTC