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。
TimChambers · 2026年8月25日 08:10 UTC
What does each team say happens when the request arrives but the area stays unavailable? Ask them to describe that one sequence without using ready.
8分Keep the ordinary process indications separate from the safety permission scheme. Receipt, availability and permission to move should not become three definitions tucked underneath one reassuring word.
11分They now agree receipt can happen while availability is false. Machine team proposes two distinct ordinary indications. Integrator accepts that meaning, but timeout handling is still only described as retry.
3分Retry what? Asking for status again and submitting another request are not the same thing, and the operator may reasonably read that word as doing the action again
12分What evidence does the waiting side retain after it times out? That determines whether it can still recognise a late response to the original request.
19分The draft has no agreed retained identity. Integrator meant another status enquiry; machine supplier read retry as a new handover request. We have removed that word until the transaction lifetime is defined.
14分That is a useful disagreement to catch on paper. Ask both to carry the same request through loss of communication and a late reply, including which side may end it. Renaming retry will not supply that missing ownership.
6分They have the late-reply case now. Receipt and availability definitions are agreed; request lifetime and the operator's response to uncertainty remain open. No physical interface changes made.
5分When they return it, have the covering operator read the proposed wait screen without the author translating. That is where a technically precise paragraph can still turn into an ambiguous button
20分