Jim:
3. Should you define a relationship for relating nameType and
nameValue information? Automated packages would find it useful, it
also makes the fact that you are use Name rather than possibly
GeneralName explicit in the module.
I am not totally sure what you are suggesting. Let me know if I got it
right.
SIR-ENTITY-NAME ::= CLASS {
&SIRNameType OBJECT IDENTIFIER UNIQUE,
&SIRNameValue
} WITH SYNTAX {
SYNTAX &SIRNameValue IDENTIFIED BY &SIRNameType
}
SIRNames{SIR-ENTITY-NAME:SIRNameSet} ::=
SEQUENCE SIZE (1..MAX) OF SIRName{{SIRNameSet}}
SIRName{SIR-ENTITY-NAME:SIRNameSet} ::= SEQUENCE {
sirNameType SIR-ENTITY-NAME.&SIRNameType({SIRNameSet}),
sirNameValue OCTET STRING (CONTAINING
SIR-ENTITY-NAME.&SIRNameValue({SIRNameSet}{@sirNameType}))
Yes that looks correct. You could use a fixed name set if you wanted to
rather than having it be a parameter. This would depend on how you are
planning to use it.
I have not made this change yet. It seems I would need a '88 and an '02 module.
I'd appreciate advice on the fixed name set vs. the parameter.
Russ
_______________________________________________
smime mailing list
smime(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/smime