Rob,

I need to digest all this and read up some more.  I’m still suck on the bit 6.  Doesn’t the 1 in bit 6 mean that we have a constructed value?  Which I translate to mean an object with ivars.  

I read your other emails and I think I’m catching onto the issues.  I’m not sure I understand what combinations are possible.

Primitive means single data element  (i.e. String)

Constructed means multiples (i.e. SomeObject).

Explicit means field name comes from ANS definition.

Implicit means field name comes from data?

Although I’m not sure.  Like I said I need to read up some more.

The definition parser is really not that complicated.  It is almost done, I was hoping to add pragmas onto objects to allow reading and writing to asn from the metadata on the ivars.  This would tie the definition to the object model.  Problem is having enough time to finish it. 

Ron

---

From: cryptography-bounces@lists.squeakfoundation.org [mailto:cryptography-bounces@lists.squeakfoundation.org] On Behalf Of Robert Withers
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 4:27 PM
To: Ron@USMedRec.com
Subject: Re: [Cryptography Team] Debugging SSL on Linux

On Mar 21, 2007, at 10:15 AM, Ron Teitelbaum wrote:

What do you think? Does changing 160 to ANS1ExplicitContextValueConstructed fix things? I suppose that we could also, if it makes sense, extend the ECV functionality to include handling multiple values if bit 6 = 1 and eliminate some duplication of code (i.e. isPrimitive, but does isPrimitive make sense for ECVC?)

I am trying to find out the intersection of Explicit/Implicit and Primitive/Constructed. I think what I am learning is that the Primitive/Constructed is represented in the tag of a Triplet, but the Explicit/Implicit is a property of the Type Module defining user types. We don't have any representation of that, since we are wrapping it all in an ASN1ExplicitContextValue.

I am still wrapping both Primitive and Constructed, but I took you advice and allowed Constructed types to have more than one value - i.e. an Implicit Sequence

We really need to do what you were working on it seems with your ASN1DefinitionModel. We need to be able to provide the Type definition to the parser, which is just the #fromAsnDer: method, and allow the BER to be mapped to user classes. Big job.

Rob