[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

Re: SET vs SET OF

To: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <Harald@Alvestrand.no>
Subject: Re: SET vs SET OF
From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <kurt@boolean.net>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 02:55:15 -0700
Cc: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.Org>, ietf-ldapext@netscape.com
In-reply-to: <4.2.0.58.19991018061145.00adaa80@dokka.maxware.no>
References: <3.0.5.32.19991017204720.0095b1e0@localhost>
Resent-date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 03:05:10 -0700 (PDT)
Resent-from: ietf-ldapext@netscape.com
Resent-message-id: <"8UhZIC.A._LB.7BvC4"@glacier>
Resent-sender: ietf-ldapext-request@netscape.com

At 06:16 AM 10/18/99 +0200, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
>>but fails to quote: "At least one filter element MUST be present in
>>an 'and' or 'or' choice."  Hence, the reader of RFC2254 might
>>be get confused by "filterlist = 1*filter" requirement.  In fact,
>>the inline comment would help readers of RFC2251 as well.
>
>In a CHOICE, one of the choices MUST be taken.

I wasn't referring to the CHOICE but to an empty SET OF
after choosing 0 or 1 that appears allowed by the ASN.1.

----
Kurt D. Zeilenga		<kurt@boolean.net>
Net Boolean Incorporated	<http://www.boolean.net/>

References:
- Re: SET vs SET OF
  - From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <Harald@Alvestrand.no>

Prev by Date: Re: A tricky matched values problem
Next by Date: A tricky matched values problem - I vote for (2)!!
Index(es):
- Chronological
- Thread