As a tool vendor, I am not sure what "underlying control mechanism inserted by the encoder" means? An ASN.1 to C translator is not going to add anything more to what is already specified in the ASN.1 source code unless it has built-in support for ROSE or something like that.
The Apdu construct you have below looks fine to me. Regards, Ed Day Objective Systems, Inc. REAL WORLD ASN.1 AND XML SOLUTIONS Tel: +1 (484) 875-9841 Fax: +1 (484) 875-9830 Toll-free: (877) 307-6855 (USA only) mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.obj-sys.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Larmouth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 10:19 AM Subject: [ASN.1] Re: ASN.1 - control structure > There is nothing wrong with the ASN.1 you are producing, and, indeed, if > you are wanting concatenation of APDUs this is probably the best way to > do it. > > I think your other questions are more tool issues, but I am copying this > to [EMAIL PROTECTED], where I am sure someon will give you a better answer > than mine! > > John L > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hello. I’ve talked to you before about ASN.1 issues and you were very > > helpful. > > > > I’m having a bit of a dilemma with an ASN.1 decision. We simply want to > > “chain” multiple protocol data units in a single data frame. We do specify > > that PER be used to create the transfer syntax. > > What we really need is some control fields within the data used by a > > parsing mechanism to sort out the start of each PDU and the end PDU in the > > chain. > > > > It was suggested that an Apdu-Concat as defined below. > > -- ----------- > > Apdu ::= CHOICE > > { action.request [0]Action-Request > > , action.response [1]Action-Response > > , get.request [2]Get-Request > > , get.response [3]Get-Response > > -- more choices follow > > } > > Apdu-Concat ::= SEQUENCE (1..4)OF Apdu –- (4 as example) > > -- ------------- > > Knowing a bit of how PER works, this would form a bit string with: (no. > > in sequence)(1st choice){structure}(2nd choice){structure)(etc.) > > all packed up but parseable – if you know how PER works. > > Is it correct to do such a thing? > > I guess the basic issues are: > > Should control structure be visible in the ASN.1 even though there is an > > underlying control mechanism inserted by the encoder? > > If you rely on the encoders control structure, does a translator from ASN.1 > > to “C” structure, for instance, make the control visible — (can’t seem to > > find much on this). > > Is there a reference to discussion of such matters that you suggest. > > (I have done some web searching but when you consider that my search engine > > returns 89,100 hits on the phrase “information overload” you begin to > > understand how just a hint is greatly appreciated.) > > > > Regards, KenCook > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > (905)624-3025x1200 > > NOTE: This e-mail is intended only for the named recipient(s) above and may > > contain information that is proprietary, confidential and/or exempt from > > disclosure under applicable law. If you have received this message in > > error, or are not the named recipient(s), please immediately notify the > > sender via e-mail or call 905-624-3020 and delete this e-mail message. > > > -- > PLEASE NOTE - As an anti-SPAM measure, e-mails will shortly > not be accepted by my machine from an unknown sender unless > the subject contains the phrase "Hi John". > > If you pass my e-mail address to others (which I am very happy > for you to do) please tell them to include this phrase in the > subject line of their first mailing to me. Thanks. > > Prof John Larmouth > Larmouth T&PDS Ltd > (Training and Protocol Development Services Ltd) > 1 Blueberry Road > Bowdon [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cheshire WA14 3LS (put "Hi John" in subject) > England > Tel: +44 161 928 1605 Fax: +44 161 928 8069 > >
