Re: CRLNumber definition and MAX

[Peter Sylvester <Peter.Sylvester@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Kemp, David P. wrote:
> I'm not sure I understand the rationale for removing the constraint on
> serial numbers - why would you want to encourage (or at least permit)
> negative serial numbers?  The explanation for a SIZE(1..MAX) constraint
> on SET/SEQUENCE is helpful but is not particularly relevant to range
> constraints on INTEGER values.
>
> Does anyone see a problem with continuing to restrict CRLNumber (and
> CertificateSerialNumber) to being non-negative?
>
> I believe there would be a problem with restricting serial number range
> to 0..2^^31-1, since (if I recall correctly) some currently-issued
> certificates have 16 octet serial number values (0..2^^127-1).

Thanks for the answer. To be sure I was not asking to
restrict serialNumbers or CRlNumbers. in fact, the definition
of CRLNumber is ok. It requires positive values and no limit
for the maximum value (in the syntax).