> DUBUISSON Olivier wrote: > [snip] > > But it clearly doesn't help in your case :( > > We'll discuss this in the ASN.1 group and I'll get back to you. > > Thanks for pointing this out. > Jean-Paul, please record this as a defect. > --
I think we all would like to hear the outcome of this discussion. And please take the other parts that Steven pointed out into consideration. I hope the ASN.1 group will go for solving the problem, not just the symptoms - please. And when we are at this please look at the first part of X.683 clause 8.6 again. "... at least once within its scope." This do actually have a negative effect on protocol design. If you actually don't use parameters in some definition, but expect to use parameters in future extensions of the protocol, then this would require quite a lot of changes to the protocol. Protocol designers aren't even aware of this. Just check ETSI INAP CS2 as an example. Here most operations are parameterized, but some doesn't use the parameters. And all I spoken to think that it is a fine way to do it - and they have all been surprised when I referred to X.683 clause 8.6. >From my point of view, this is just pain, no gain. Best regards Egon Andersen -- * Talura ApS * Phone: +45 43 52 50 00 * * Baldersh�j 24 B * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * DK-2635 Ish�j * http://www.talura.dk *
