Hi,
I'm having difficulty resolving some ASN1. I'm inclined to think that it is
invalid and I'd welcome another opinion that might give me a hint about
what I don't understand.
X519 "IDMProtocolSpecification {joint-iso-itu-t ds(5) module (1)
iDMProtocolSpecification (30) 4}"
defines:
IDM-PDU {IDM-PROTOCOL:protocol} ::= CHOICE {
bind [0] Bind{ {protocol} },
bindResult [1] BindResult{ {protocol} },
bindError [2] BindError{ {protocol} },
request [3] Request{ {protocol.&Operations} },
result [4] Result{ {protocol.&Operations} },
error [5] Error{ {protocol.&Operations} },
reject [6] Reject,
unbind [7] Unbind,
abort [8] Abort }
I parse this as a ParameterizedObjectClass called IDM-PDU with a ParameterList
containing a DummyReference protocol and Governor IDM-PROTOCOL.
And then in "DirectoryIDMProtocols {joint-iso-itu-t ds(5) module(1)
directoryIDMProtocols(31) 4}"
X519 goes on to define:
DAP-IDM-PDUs ::= IDM-PDU (dap-ip)
dap-ip IDM-PROTOCOL ::= {
BIND-OPERATION directoryBind
OPERATIONS { read | compare | abandon | list | search | addEntry |
removeEntry | modifyEntry | modifyDN }
ID id-idm-dap }
The thing I don't understand is how IDM-PDU can be used here with a Constraint,
but without the parameter that it's definition requires. To me Constraints
affect the values the Type takes, but aren't used to define the Type itself
like the IDM-PDU defined above.
My understanding of X682 is that adding a Constraint to a Type creates a unique
subtype, but requires that the Type be resolved first and if a ReferencedType
is defined with a ParameterList, a consistent set of parameters must be
passed.
Either I have a bug in my parser (due to my misunderstanding) or the definition
should read:
DAP-IDM-PDUs ::= IDM-PDU {dap-ip}
so that the dap-ip Object is passed in a ParameterList, not a Constraint.
--
John Birrell
