Return-Path: From: To: CC: , Date: Wed, 4 May 2011 10:52:35 +0300 Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/2] Add secure param to Mgmt PIN Code Request Event Message-ID: <99B09243E1A5DA4898CDD8B70011144816F2AEF2AB@EXMB04.eu.tieto.com> References: <1303987847-6878-1-git-send-email-waldemar.rymarkiewicz@tieto.com> <1304189166.15916.98.camel@aeonflux> <99B09243E1A5DA4898CDD8B70011144816F29AF32A@EXMB04.eu.tieto.com> <1304350260.15916.102.camel@aeonflux> In-Reply-To: <1304350260.15916.102.camel@aeonflux> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 List-ID: Hi Marcel, >yes, we need these things documented. > >Obviously now the question is why not expose this as=20 >min_pin_length value? > Well, that's another approach, but for us it's only essential if the pin is= 16 digit or not. So, boolean it's enough in my opinion. Moreover, if we go for min_pin_len a user should have a chance to set this = value for instance an the socket. That means a new interface, obviously not= appreciated. Otherwise, min_pin_len will be 16 or 0 (length not important)= . Thanks, Waldek