----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Thorpe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 8:54
PM
Subject: Re: [ASN.1] Rgd tagging of SEQUENCE
type
> On Tue, 30 Sep 2003, Ramaswamy
wrote:
>
> The objective was that all "Root" components are numbered first, then all
> extension additions. Note that X.680, 24.9 does not distiguish between
> what is in the first or second RootComponentTypeList. I treats both
> "RootComponentTypeList" together.
>
>
> The objective was that all "Root" components are numbered first, then all
> extension additions. Note that X.680, 24.9 does not distiguish between
> what is in the first or second RootComponentTypeList. I treats both
> "RootComponentTypeList" together.
>
Hi,
I still could not quite
convince myself with the process of AUTOMATIC TAGGING for the specific case that
we discusses w.r.t. extensibility. I guess I didn't express myself clear enough.
The following illustrates the problem that I have -
ComponentTypeLists <- RootComponentTypeList
"," ExtensionAndException ExtensionAdditions ExtensionEndMarker ","
RootComponentTypeList
In Version1 of protocol:
SomeSequence ::=
SEQUENCE
{
a INTEGER,
b REAL,
...,
eal1
BOOLEAN,
eal2 NULL
OPTIONAL,
...,
rctl1 REAL
}
In Version2 of protocol:
SomeSequence ::=
SEQUENCE
{
a
INTEGER,
b
REAL,
...,
eal1
BOOLEAN,
eal2 NULL
OPTIONAL,
...,
rctl1
REAL,
rctl2
NumericString
}
Both of the above mentioned
'SomeSequence' are of the same protocol in different
version in an AUTOMATIC TAGGING environment. Now as per the statement made above
if we were to tag both the RootComponentTypeList's first and then number the
ExtensionAdditionList wouldn't the tag given to eal1
and eal2 vary between the protocols. Ain't this
behaviour is incorrect (in context of extensibility) for the reason that the
same elements get different tags in different versions? In case my understanding
is flawed kindly elucidate the same. Thanking you.
Yours Sincerely
Ramaswamy
