Subject: Re: ASN.1-SIZE floating

From: [email-masked] (John Pawling)
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 14:14:18 -0400

Darren (and friends),

I believe the intent of using MAX as a size limit is to encourage dynamic
allocation of these fields.  If the group decides that setting hard-coded
max values is more advantageous than using MAX, then I would recommend the
following limits (these are guestimates of upper limits; the guessing part
is the disadvantage of setting hard-coded maximiums):

ContentHints ::= SEQUENCE {
  contentDescription UTF8String SIZE (1..128) OPTIONAL,
  contentType ContentType }

ESSPrivacyMark ::= CHOICE {
    pString      PrintableString SIZE (1..ub-privacy-mark-length),
    utf8String   UTF8String SIZE (1..128)
}

MLReceiptPolicy ::= CHOICE {
  none [0] NULL,
  insteadOf [1] SEQUENCE SIZE (1..64) OF GeneralNames,
  inAdditionTo [2] SEQUENCE SIZE (1..64) OF GeneralNames }

- John Pawling

---

From: Paul Hoffman / IMC <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 11:26:35 -0700

>is the disadvantage of setting hard-coded maximiums):

As long as everyone remembers that the lengths on UTF8Strings are the
number of UTF8 characters, not the number of bytes that those characters
take up, I'm happy with these replacements.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Internet Mail Consortium