[x500standard] Re: Compatibility between X.519 and ROSE for reject
- From: "Erik Andersen" <era@xxxxxxx>
- To: <x500standard@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 10:33:58 +0200
Hi Jean-Paul,
Thanks for this observation.
You should issue a defect report. You should also issue one for the DOP
problem. If you send it to SC6, please add DR numbers 346 and 347, as we get
back in PDF from SC6.
Erik Andersen
Andersen's L-Service
Elsevej 48, DK-3500 Vaerloese
Denmark
Mobile: +45 2097 1490
email: era@xxxxxxx
www.x500.eu
www.x500standard.com
-----Original Message-----
From: x500standard-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:x500standard-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jean-Paul LEMAIRE
Sent: 25. juni 2009 18:45
To: x500standard@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [x500standard] Compatibility between X.519 and ROSE for reject
Hi,
It seems that the definition of OsiRej in X.519:
OsiRej ::= [4] IMPLICIT SEQUENCE {
invokeId InvokeId,
problem CHOICE {
general [0] GeneralProblem,
invoke [1] InvokeProblem,
returnResult [2] ReturnResultProblem,
returnError [3] ReturnErrorProblem }}
is not compatible with Reject type defined in X.880 because the module
Remote-Operations-Generic-ROS-PDUs is in implicit tagging environment.
The compatible definition should be:
OsiRej ::= [4] IMPLICIT SEQUENCE {
invokeId InvokeId,
problem CHOICE {
general [0] IMPLICIT GeneralProblem,
invoke [1] IMPLICIT InvokeProblem,
returnResult [2] IMPLICIT ReturnResultProblem,
returnError [3] IMPLICIT ReturnErrorProblem }}
Jean-Paul.
-----
www.x500standard.com: The central source for information on the X.500
Directory Standard.
-----
www.x500standard.com: The central source for information on the X.500 Directory
Standard.
Other related posts:
