+1
> On Oct 25, 2017, at 11:44 PM, Łukasz Rymanowski
> wrote:
>
> +1
>
> On 26 October 2017 at 08:44, Łukasz Rymanowski
> wrote:
>> On 26 October 2017 at 06:55, will sanfilippo wrote:
>>> +1 Sounds good to me.
On 26 October 2017 at 06:55, will sanfilippo wrote:
> +1 Sounds good to me.
>
>> On Oct 25, 2017, at 9:53 PM, aditi hilbert wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Oct 25, 2017, at 6:46 PM, Christopher Collins wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 12:07:58PM
+1 Sounds good to me.
> On Oct 25, 2017, at 9:53 PM, aditi hilbert wrote:
>
>
>> On Oct 25, 2017, at 6:46 PM, Christopher Collins wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 12:07:58PM -0700, Christopher Collins wrote:
>>> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 10:18:14AM
> On Oct 25, 2017, at 6:46 PM, Christopher Collins wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 12:07:58PM -0700, Christopher Collins wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 10:18:14AM -0700, Christopher Collins wrote:
>>> * Because this is an API change, it would be best to introduce it
>>>
On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 12:07:58PM -0700, Christopher Collins wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 10:18:14AM -0700, Christopher Collins wrote:
> > * Because this is an API change, it would be best to introduce it
> > slowly. The `BLE_GAP_CONN_CANCEL` event would be marked deprecated in
> > the
Hi Chris,
On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 7:18 PM, Christopher Collins
wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> *** Proposal
>
> I propose that we remove the `BLE_GAP_EVENT_CONN_CANCEL` event. Instead
> of using this event type, the host would report a successful
> cancellation via a