Thanks for the clarification. Regards,
Steven -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Dr. Stephen Henson Sent: Friday, 30 May 2003 9:15 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Problems with GENERAL_NAMES on IMPLICIT mode On Fri, May 30, 2003, Steven Reddie wrote: > I think I recall that since GeneralName is a CHOICE that using it with > IMPLICIT tags requires the implicit tag to be declared explicitly to avoid > ambiguity. I'm not an ASN.1 expert but I've come across this problem before > and had to work around it by reversing the implicit tag of GeneralName. > I've never been 100% sure of this although I never found a case that > disobeyed this rule. If you find anymore out I'd appreciate hearing about > it. > While that's correct this case refers to GeneralNames not GeneralName. Since GeneralNames is a SEQUENCE OF GeneralName and has a SEQUENCE tag it can have an IMPLICIT tag itself because that would change the SEQUENCE tag which is not ambiguous. Steve. -- Dr Stephen N. Henson. Core developer of the OpenSSL project: http://www.openssl.org/ Freelance consultant see: http://www.drh-consultancy.demon.co.uk/ Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED], PGP key: via homepage. ______________________________________________________________________ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] ______________________________________________________________________ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
