On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 12:09:37PM +0100, Anders Broman wrote: > On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 09:33:26PM +0100, Anders Broman wrote: > >> Hi, > >> I have checked in a fix in revision 2731, formally I think the frame > >> is wrongly Encoded as the tag [3] is missing but from comments in the > >> code It looks like this is common, also from the comments in the asn1 > >> Description IMSI should be there as well, right? > > > >cristian: than why is it marked as OPTIONAL?? > >(see below) > > > >from the asn1 point of view, a SendRoutingInfoRes SEQUENCE w/o imsi is > >correct. > Yes > > But > > -- IMSI must be present if SendRoutingInfoRes is not segmented. > I take that to mean that IMSI must be present but in the case of segmentation > IMSI is only in the first segment(?) > E.g message ASN1 syntactly correct but not according to spec?
cristian: right. according to the asn1 syntax this message would have a _correctly_ encoded pdu; it does not conform to the 3gpp map semantics though. is there a way to show this in ws? otoh decoding the roamingNumber in the extendedRoutingInfo as imsi was also not correct... thanks a lot! bye now! cristian ___________________________________________________________________________ Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <[email protected]> Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe
