Benoit POSTE wrote:
X.691 clause 18.1 is abundantly clear on this:
... The bit shall be one if values of extension
additions are present in this encoding, and zero
otherwise
What is the source of your confusion as to how the SEQUENCE
should be
On Fri, 27 Jul 2001, Benoit POSTE wrote:
Thank you very much Mr. Scott for resending you e-mail.
So, just to get this straight (last question, I promise!), if
I understood well:
Toto ::= SEQUENCE {
one BOOLEAN,
...,
two BOOLEAN OPTIONAL,
three
I sent this message yesterday ... and still haven't seen it on
the list, so I guess It did not get through. Sorry if it actually
did and if I double-post.
Regards,
Benoit.
X.691 clause 18.1 is abundantly clear on this:
... The bit shall be one if values of extension
On Thu, 26 Jul 2001, Egon Andersen, Talura wrote:
Bancroft Scott wrote:
[snip]
Or in other words: we have no direct way to say that
mandatory components in first ExtensionAdditionGroup must
be present, if we have components from the second
ExtensionAdditionGroup.
(I knew I should have written a I'll be back at the end of my
last e-mail on this topic ...)
Hello all.
I know that I have already asked very similar questions a
while ago ... unfortunately none seem to fit my current problem.
If we consider a sequence type with a few extensions that
Benoit POSTE
benoit.poste@tri To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 25 Jul 2001, Benoit POSTE wrote:
(I knew I should have written a I'll be back at the end of my
last e-mail on this topic ...)
Hello all.
I know that I have already asked very similar questions a
while ago ... unfortunately none seem to fit my current problem.
If we
Bancroft Scott wrote:
[snip]
Or in other words: we have no direct way to say that
mandatory components in first ExtensionAdditionGroup must
be present, if we have components from the second
ExtensionAdditionGroup.
This could be handled if ASN.1 allowed the following
