简体中文界面。帖子、指南及政策正文保留原文；未对原文作自动翻译。
MeiAdams0168 · 2025年6月24日 08:30 UTC
Ask each supplier to describe what must be true before it sets that signal and what the other side may do on seeing it; that should expose the difference without arguing over the name first.
21分Thank you, Ravi. We tried that on the call and the machine supplier confirmed it can acknowledge the request while still finishing its own sequence. Definitely not the permission the integrator thought it was.
11分Give acknowledgement and availability separate descriptions in the draft, with each supplier naming who sets and clears them; the existing safety conditions still need their own agreed design.
13分We got further with a pretend interrupted cycle than with three rounds of signal names. Could both teams walk through a request arriving, the connection dropping and then coming back, using your new descriptions?
11分We did a paper walkthrough. They agree on normal acknowledgement now, but disagree on who cancels an old request after reconnection. I'm glad we tried it before calling the interface finished.
16分That's exactly where ours got sticky. Thanks for posting the result. Did they assign that cancellation question to someone, or is it still sitting between the two teams?
14分The operator's recovery instructions will need that answer too; otherwise the person at the cell inherits the same disagreement with less information.
7分此讨论已连续六个月没有活动，现已关闭新回复。 最后活动： .