>> This is really a big spec when you think that a >> Set of SubtreeSpecifications is only a small part of the grammar.. >> >> I can change the grantsAndDenials to recognize a string of certain >> number >> of 0's and 1's something like '10101010'B. However Trustin will have to >> write a lot of bitwise code to handle this component in his ACDF. If we >> choose this way we must exactly determine which fields are necessary for >> ldap while it's not a flexible structure. > > If you write a string, you will have to put all the bits. It's a good > idea to suppress some of the bits, but keep in mind that it's a better > idea to keep the offset of each bit, instead of renumbering them.
It's a good idea to keep unused bits reserved. Then we'll be compatible with X.501 and save space a lot. I liked this. > Handling the bits could be something simple if we use internally the > BitString we have in ber-new, assuming we add a constructor that take a > String. If Trustin provides me a constructor that takes a String then i'll not care if he uses your stuff or his own :-) But we should first be sure if we'll use bit-list or bstring form. After Alex and Trustin says final thoughts i'll finish it up. ( elecharny, i've fixed some issues with the grammar. I'll show you on the channel. You can forget about issues of SP we talked here. ) -- Ersin
