Re: Cross-purpose SEQUENCE/CHOICE protocol extension fields

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

Hallvard B Furuseth writes:
> There are two different ways to extend BindResponse and ModifyRequest.
> I imagine this may lead to some sort of conflict or at least a rather
> messy situation, in particular in which order the fields should occur:
> 
> 1) If one defines a new BindRequest.AuthenticationChoice or
>    ModifyRequest.changes.change.operation, one may need a new matching
>    sequence element in BindResponse or ModifyRequest.changes.change.
> 
> 2) One may define trailing SEQUENCE elements; [Protocol] section 4 says
>    implementation must ignore unrecognized trailing SEQUENCE elements.

Sorry, that was unclear.
(1) of course employs what (2) says.
With (2) I meant to define such SEQUENCE elements for some different
purpose, independent of the AuthenticationChoice/operation.

-- 
Hallvard