Re: [smime] draft-housley-ct-keypackage-receipt-n-error-00

[Russ Housley <[e-mail]>]

Jim:

>>> 3.  Should you define a relationship for relating nameType and
>>> nameValue information?  Automated packages would find it useful, it
>>> also makes the fact that you are use Name rather than possibly
>>> GeneralName explicit in the module.
>> 
>> I am not totally sure what you are suggesting.  Let me know if I got it
> right.
>> 
>>  SIR-ENTITY-NAME ::= CLASS {
>>      &SIRNameType  OBJECT IDENTIFIER UNIQUE,
>>      &SIRNameValue
>>  } WITH SYNTAX {
>>      SYNTAX &SIRNameValue IDENTIFIED BY &SIRNameType
>>  }
>> 
>>  SIRNames{SIR-ENTITY-NAME:SIRNameSet} ::=
>>      SEQUENCE SIZE (1..MAX) OF SIRName{{SIRNameSet}}
>> 
>>  SIRName{SIR-ENTITY-NAME:SIRNameSet} ::= SEQUENCE {
>>      sirNameType      SIR-ENTITY-NAME.&SIRNameType({SIRNameSet}),
>>      sirNameValue   OCTET STRING (CONTAINING
>> 
> SIR-ENTITY-NAME.&SIRNameValue({SIRNameSet}{@sirNameType}))
> 
> Yes that looks correct.  You could use a fixed name set if you wanted to
> rather than having it be a parameter.  This would depend on how you are
> planning to use it.

I have not made this change yet.  It seems I would need a '88 and an '02 module.

I'd appreciate advice on the fixed name set vs. the parameter.

Russ