On Mon, 8 May 2017 at 21:36, Enke Chen <enkechen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I understand this is not a good use of time. But since it is in the
spec, I would like to understand the reasons. If there are good reasons
for doing things differently, then they should be documented in the spec
so that people do not question again.
In the security section: "This specification minimizes the effects of visual spoofing by limiting the length of the Shutdown Communication."
On 5/8/17 12:13 PM, Jakob Heitz (jheitz) wrote:
> It is deliberately kept short to minimize the potential for abuse.
128 is ok, and 129- 255 would be considered abuse?
Those are an error according to the draft.
Kind regards,
Job