Claudio, (Thanks for the comments) Yes, I am aware of this syntax error.... in the rush to file the white paper it snuck through. It along with anything else will be corrected in Geneva. As for the second point, hmmm.....? You are correct in that the implication is that timeStamp and generalID are to be required for use in the PwdCertToken. I'll have to go back and look at the recommendation, but I thought that the current construct implies that they must be present (along with any other optional values desired). If this is incorrect, it will certainly be fixed. Regards, jimt. At 02:58 PM 10/31/97 +0100, you wrote:

While working with the H.235 ASN.1 Symtax, I found a syntax error and also a definition which seems to be wrong:

1. A closing ')' is missing in the line

EncodedGeneralToken ::= TYPE-IDENTIFIER.&Type (ClearToken) -- general usage token --------^

2. PwdCertToken ::= ClearToken (WITH COMPONENTS {..., timeStamp, generalID })

As far as I understand this line, timeStamp and generalID should be mandatory inside a PwdCertToken (if they should still be optional there is no need to use a WITH COMPONENTS). Without the '...' we would have a 'FullSpecification' and in this case the above line would mean that timeStamp and generalID are now mandatory. However, this is a 'PartialSpecification;, in which case no PresenceConstraint means that no constraint is imposed (see x680, 45.8.9.3).

The correct line would therefore be

PwdCertToken ::= ClearToken (WITH COMPONENTS {..., timeStamp PRESENT, generalID PRESENT})

Is this assumption correct?

Thanks,

Claudio Fleiner (cfl@zurich.ibm.com)

************************************************************************* *** +1-503-264-8816(voice) +1-503-264-3485(fax) *** *** jtoga@ibeam.intel.com Intel - Hillsboro, OR. *** *** PGP keyID 36 07 86 49 7D 74 DF 57 50 CB BA 32 08 9C 7C 41*** *************************************************************************