> I understood what will be the encoding when we use explicit & implicit
> tagging. that is what you explained.
> But what i really want to know is - In which context we will use explict
> tagging & in which context we will use implicit tagging.
If one or the other is specified in a protocol, use that. For reasons I
don't agree with but that I have to live with, implicit tagging is almost
always used. Explicit tagging is only used when implicit tagging is not
possible. The case where implicit tagging is not possible is when something
that does not understand the protocol nevertheless needs to decode the data
in the objects. I fact this situation all the time, and it's why I *hate*
implicit tagging.
Save a few bytes, tremendously increase complexity. Welcome to implicit
tagging.
Consider a parser that's supposed to turn BER into XML. With explicit
tagging, it's trivial to turn
[ 3 [ INTEGER 7 ] ]
Into
<object><type>3</type><integer>7</integer></object>
But with implicit tagging, how do you turn
[ 3 7 ]
Into XML if you don't know that '3' means integer *in* *this* *context*.
Result: with implicit tagging you have to understand the high level protocol
to make sense of the low level protocol. That's a horrible shame, IMO.
DS
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
User Support Mailing List openssl-users@openssl.org
Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
