Re: Cross-purpose SEQUENCE/CHOICE protocol extension fields

[Steven Legg <steven.legg@eb2bcom.com>]

Jim Sermersheim wrote:
> Along with this view, I'll propose that the current wording in
> [Protocol] (below) is sufficient, and defers the mechanisms and usages
> of extensibility to X.680. I believe the intent of RFC 2251 and the
> intent of [Protocol] is to follow the extensibility rules of X.680 and
> not add additional requirements, clarifications, guidelines, etc.
>  
> "In order to support future extensions to this protocol, extensibility
> is implied where it is allowed per ASN.1"

Works for me.

Steven