> On 15 Sep 2025, at 17:56, Kirill Reshke <reshkekirill@gmail.com> 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
veryverbose...
Best regards, Andrey Borodin.