The use of things such as CONTENT-TYPE are already pushing you to the point
of needing an '88 ASN.1 module in the event that is a requirement. The
addition of the SIR-ENTITY-NAME class does not change anything from the
current world. As such I do not believe that this is a change that would
affect a decision on providing an '88 module.
One would use a parameterized class definition if one believe that the class
would be used in multiple locations with different sets of parameters. Thus
it makes sense in the case of CMS to define a single class and type for
signed attributes, unsigned attributes, authenticated attributes,
unauthenticated attributes as a parameterized set. The same basic type
structure is used in each of these locations but with a different set of
possible values that can go into each location.
One would use a global/fixed name set in the event that something is used in
exactly one location and there is no reason to expect that it would be
imported into a different module and used with a different set of possible
values. Thus we use a single global set in the update to 5272 for the
definition of Cmc-Control-Set.
I would say that if you expect this to be used in a different document then
using a parameter makes sense. Otherwise I would use a fixed object set in
this location.
Jim
-----Original Message-----
From: Russ Housley [mailto:housley(_at_)vigilsec(_dot_)com]
Sent: Friday, May 17, 2013 2:34 PM
To: Jim Schaad
Cc: 'IETF SMIME'
Subject: Re: [smime] draft-housley-ct-keypackage-receipt-n-error-00
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