> On 15 Sep 2025, at 17:56, Kirill Reshke <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> I suggest removing this custom FPW support.

I agree that extra message adds no value. Generic FPW message has the same "for 
verification" details too.
I've checked if there are any other similar cases, but found non FPW 
indications in other resource managers.

Maybe a litter comment about why we don't describe anything in presence of FPW 
would be good. But nearby code is not very verbose...


Best regards, Andrey Borodin.

Reply via email to