It is my opinion that the size constraint in this case must be respected; otherwise, it has no meaning.  Clearly, the person who wrote this definition wanted the bit string to be between 15 and 32 bits in length, otherwise the size constraint would not have been added.  As to precise language in the standards stating this, I could not find any.
 
Regards,
 
Ed Day
Objective Systems, Inc.
REAL WORLD ASN.1 AND XML SOLUTIONS
Tel: +1 (484) 875-3020
Fax: +1 (484) 875-2913
Toll-free: (877) 307-6855 (USA only)
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.obj-sys.com
 
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, February 28, 2003 4:27 AM
Subject: [ASN.1] Question on BER

Dear ASN.1 experts

 

In order to solve an interoperability problem resulting from different interpretations of ITU-T X.690, your help on the following question is very much appreciated:

 

A BER encoded message contains a data type for which the abstract syntax is defined as

 

DataType ::= BIT STRING {

 bitOne  (0),

 bitTwo  (1),

 bitThree (2),

 bitSeven (6),

 bitEight (7),

 bitNine (8),

 bitFour (3),

 bitFive (4),

 bitSix  (5),

 bitTen  (9),

 bitEleven  (10),

 bitTwelve (11),

 bitThirteen  (12),

 bitFourteen  (13),

 bitFifteen  (14),

 bitNineteen  (18),

 bitTwenty  (19),

 bitTwentyone  (20),

 bitTwentytwo  (21),

 bitTwentythree  (22),

 bitTwentyfour  (23),

 bitTwentyfive  (24),

 bitTwentysix  (25),

 bitTwentyseven  (26),

 bitTwentyeight  (27),

 bitTwentynine  (28)} (SIZE (15..32))

 

The entity sending the message encodes this data type as:

 

03 TAG

02 length

00 no unused bits

80 bitOne set to 1, bitTwo to bitSeven set to 0

 

The entity receiving the message does not accept it due to the SIZE constraint not being respected and performs the appropriate error handling.

 

Now designers of the sending entity argue that ITU-T X.690 � 8.6.2.4 and � 11.2.2 allow the encoder to encode the data type as shown above whereas designers of the receiving entity do not share this view and insist on the SIZE constraint being respected.

 

Dear Experts,

please let me know which of the above interpretations of ITU-T X.690 is correct and whether or not X.690 is incompatible to X.209 in this respect.

 

 

Thank you in advance

 

Ulrich Wiehe

 

GKS AG                                         

Gesellschaft f�r

Kommunikations Software         Tel:+496621 169139

MMC2                                      Fax:+49 6621 169 122

Breitenstr. 57                            Mobil: +49 151 14016088

D-36251 Bad Hersfeld                    e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

 

 

 

Reply via email to