Re: and/or (1..MAX) constraint

Hallvard,

Hallvard B Furuseth wrote:
> What happened to this?
> 
> I've been expecting someone to post an explanation of why the grammar
> change is a problem for the T/F filter spec.  Did I miss it, or did the
> someone decide it was a false alarm?

The T/F filter spec removes the size constraint. If the constraint were
not explicit in the ASN.1 then the T/F filter spec would only need to update
the prose of the protocols draft. With the constraint explicit in the ASN.1
the T/F filter spec will need to formally update the ASN.1 as well.
No big deal. Kurt, as the author of the T/F filter spec, does not appear to
be concerned by the minor extra work.

Regards,
Steven

> 
> At 07 Nov 2004, Jim Sermersheim wrote:
> 
>>I've re-added these, and will wait for WG consensus to remove them.
>>
>>
>>>>>"Kurt D. Zeilenga" <[email protected]> 10/29/04 2:23:39 PM >>>
>>>
>>>As chair, I note that the WG did specifically discussed adding
>>>these constraints to the revised ASN.1 module, (...)
>>>
>>>It seems however that some have raised "new" concerns supporting
>>>dropping the SIZE (1..MAX) constraints, however, it not quite
>>>clear what that concern is. Hence, I suggest that those who
>>>support dropping these constraints based upon "new" concerns
>>>detail those concerns to the WG and why it is necessary (or
>>>appropriate) to drop these constraints. We'll discuss the "new"
>>>concerns and see if consensus now clearly supports dropping
>>>these constraints. In absence of a clear consensus to drop the
>>>constraints, the chairs will direct the Editor to include
>>>these constraints.
>>>
>>>At 11:31 PM 10/28/2004, Jim Sermersheim wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>This [no SIZE constraint] is the way it was in RFC 2251.  At some
>>>>point, [protocol] added the SIZE (1..MAX) to the ASN.1 to make it
>>>>consistent with the text. It was then found that this prevents
>>>>Kurt's T/F filter spec from working without breaking protocol, so
>>>>we removed the ASN.1 grammar.
> 
>