OK, I understand this. My problem was that I considered the SEQUENCE ...
OPTIONAL
as one ASN.1 definition, but in fact it's two, one with the element being
present,
and one with the element being absent. The two possible semantics should not
be
eliminated through DER. Fine.
I'm glad we agree that no change to the DER is indicated. However, as far as I
can tell the definition for a CRL's ASN.1 in RFC1422 is the same as it is in
X.509. Moreover, this does not seem to have changed in the most recent
X.500-1993 drafts I have available (February 1993), so this probably needs to
be changed in X.509 as well.
There are also other differences between the X.509 CRLs and those in RFC1422. I
believe someone posted something to the effect that defect reports have been
submitted that should realign the two. Is there any progress to report on this
front?
Ned