Subject: Re: Cross-purpose SEQUENCE/CHOICE protocol extension fields

From: "Jim Sermersheim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2004 13:43:54 -0700

Along with this view, I'll propose that the current wording in
[Protocol] (below) is sufficient, and defers the mechanisms and usages
of extensibility to X.680. I believe the intent of RFC 2251 and the
intent of [Protocol] is to follow the extensibility rules of X.680 and
not add additional requirements, clarifications, guidelines, etc.
 
"In order to support future extensions to this protocol, extensibility
is implied where it is allowed per ASN.1"

Jim

>>> "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <[email-masked]> 11/9/04 10:02:48 AM >>>
At 07:48 PM 11/8/2004, Steven Legg wrote:
>Extensibilty in ASN.1 is essentially linear and assumed to be employed
through standards actions (user-defined extensions are handled through
open types with component relation constraints - directory attributes
fall into this category).

It's my view that guidelines for kinds of ASN.1 extensions are
best left to future documents.

Kurt

---

From: Steven Legg <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 10:49:06 +1100

> is implied where it is allowed per ASN.1"

Works for me.

Steven