Article View: comp.protocols.iso
Article #1098Re: ASN.1 defn. is a grammar?
From: Bob Fetter
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 1991 04:55
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 1991 04:55
21 lines
1262 bytes
1262 bytes
That is a wonderful example of bad specification. You really should *not* rely on Constructed/Primitive as a clue to determining the class of data. Degenerating the tag down to it's base Universal type should give you the rules for constructed/primitive, but this path is based on manipulating the tag first, *then* worrying about construction. If at all possible, the specification should be reworked to remove this ambiquity. I can only hope that this isn't sprung from some standard, but is based on a local use of ASN.1. As an aside chuckle, isn't Ada (tm) supposed to be *another* language in which it's impossible to make an error, as it's so well specified? :-) But, if not, then that's what NIST OIW and EC EWOS is all about, I guess... -Bob-
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<43252@cos.com>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!linac!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!uunet!cos!fetterReferences:
<1991Jan31.165316.616@shl.com>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!linac!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!uunet!cos!fetter From: fetter@cos.com (Bob Fetter) Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso Subject: Re: ASN.1 defn. is a grammar? Keywords: ASN.1, grammar Message-ID: <43252@cos.com> Date: 4 Feb 91 04:55:42 GMT References: <1991Jan31.165316.616@shl.com> Reply-To: fetter@cos.UUCP (Bob Fetter) Organization: Corporation for Open Systems, McLean, VA Lines: 21