Peter:
I would like to support multiple name forms. RFC 822 Addresses and X.500
Distinguished names both have uses.
I can agree to limiting to maximun number of GeneralNames in the sequence
to some small number, but not one. Perhaps eight is a reasonable number.
Russ
At 09:49 AM 9/16/98 +0000, Peter Gutmann wrote:
jsp(_at_)jgvandyke(_dot_)com (John Pawling) writes:
MLReceiptPolicy ::= CHOICE {
none [0] NULL,
insteadOf [1] SEQUENCE SIZE (1..64) OF GeneralNames,
inAdditionTo [2] SEQUENCE SIZE (1..64) OF GeneralNames }
Since GeneralNames is already a SEQUENCE SIZE (1...someone-elses-MAX) OF
GeneralName, shouldn't these fields be GeneralName (without the 's')?
Alternatively, just use GeneralNames (without the SEQUENCE OF), since it's
already defined elsewhere. This problem (using GeneralNames instead of
GeneralName) occurs in various other places as well...
While I'm commenting on MLReceiptPolicy, the tagging on the NULL isn't
necessary, since it's distinct from the two SEQUENCEs - all you need is [0]
and [1] to distinguish the SEQUENCEs.
Peter.