Re: ABNF of numericoid

[Hallvard B Furuseth <h.b.furuseth@usit.uio.no>]

Kurt D. Zeilenga writes:
>At 02:26 PM 12/7/2003, Hallvard B Furuseth wrote:
>
> >It should be ( "0" / "1" / "2" ) 1*( DOT number )
> (1)
> >with further restrictions on the second component.
> 
> or (2)
>         numericoid = number 1*( DOT number )
> or (3)
>         numericoid = %x30-31 DOT [ %x31-33 ] DIGIT *( DOT number )
>                 / %x32 1*( DOT number )
> 
> Of these, I dislike (1) because it accounts for some, but not
> all, of the X.690 restrictions.

Good point.  Forget (1).

> (3) incorporates all of the X.660 semantics/X.690
> limitations.
> 
> Any concerns in going with (3)?

Has anyone checked that the second number may have any nonnegative
value when the first number is 2?

Leading zeroes.  (1) and (3) allow the <number> components but not
the spelled-out components to have leading zeroes.  Which is right?

-- 
Hallvard