Folks,
While fiddling with Convert::ASN1's wonderful dump routine, asn_dump(),
and Convert::BER's equally nice dump() routine, I came across the
following "huh?"...
[Convert::BER->dump() v 1.3101]
...
0060 13 35: UNIVERSAL [19]
...
0097 30 13: SEQUENCE {
0099 06
Folks,
Shouldn't have hit send so quickly. A couple more things of interest in
comparing the dump routines of Convert::ASN1 and Convert::BER. I
realize these are for *debug only*, per the source, but ...
In Convert::BER->dump(), I think that most of the addresses of the
contents of "complicated
On 13/3/06 5:36, Diffenderfer, Randy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There are a couple differences, some cosmetic, some not so... The
> inclusion of the 'tag' primitive in the BER output I like, for instance.
Agreed.
> I'm not sure which is more apprpriated for the context tags.
I guess dumping
On 13/3/06 5:57, Diffenderfer, Randy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Folks,
>
> Shouldn't have hit send so quickly. A couple more things of interest in
> comparing the dump routines of Convert::ASN1 and Convert::BER. I
> realize these are for *debug only*, per the source, but ...
>
> In Convert::
On Mon, March 13, 2006 12:10 pm, Chris Ridd wrote:
> Convert::ASN's got a bignum mode which will allow things like stupid
> Verisign serial numbers to be more easily held and (I guess) printed. (I'm
> away from the docs to check this.)
Yes, Convert::ASN1 will use Math::BigNum for large integers.
On Mon, March 13, 2006 12:08 pm, Chris Ridd wrote:
>
>> I think it would be a good thing to have these guys consistent, and I do
>> think the BER string contents' offset isn't kosher.
>
> Yes, though I'm not sure if Graham's updating the BER module much. I
> thought
> nowadays the ASN module's whe
On 10/3/06 5:36, Adrian De los Santos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Mar 10, 2006, at 11:30 AM, Adrian De los Santos wrote:
>
>>
>> On Mar 10, 2006, at 11:28 AM, Chris Ridd wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/3/06 5:22, Adrian De los Santos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
On Mar 9, 2006, at 6:28 PM, G
On Mon, March 13, 2006 2:17 pm, Chris Ridd wrote:
> (Adrian sent me the debug output direct.)
>
> It looks quite like the server was sending mangled BER. The LDAP result
> was
> actually very large (so the byte offsets logged were OK), but the server
> suddenly decided to send a PrintableString va
On 13/3/06 9:27, Graham Barr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, March 13, 2006 2:17 pm, Chris Ridd wrote:
>
>> (Adrian sent me the debug output direct.)
>>
>> It looks quite like the server was sending mangled BER. The LDAP result
>> was
>> actually very large (so the byte offsets logged were
