W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xmlsec-maintwg@w3.org > December 2007

test case document - editorial comments

From: Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 07:42:51 -0500
Message-Id: <34C2A803-05E7-4106-9F9F-9AD29BD45031@nokia.com>
Cc: Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>
To: XMLSec XMLSec <public-xmlsec-maintwg@w3.org>

Some editorial comments on version 29 November
http://www.w3.org/2007/xmlsec/interop/xmlsig-interop-doc/testcases.html

(1) Provide reference to latest C14N11 Draft in section 2,  
introduction. Remove related editorial notes in 3.2,  3.2.5

http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2007/12/PR-xml-c14n11-20071211.html

(2) modify abstract as follows (proposal):

change
"This working document defines test cases for interoperability tests  
for [XMLDSIG] in the light of two areas that have suffered changes  
since its publication of XMLDSig, namely: xml namespace attributes  
management in canonicalization and the encoding as strings of  
Distinguished Names in X.509 certificates. This document also  
includes references to testcases already developed by the [XMLDSIG]  
working group."

to

"This document defines interoperability test cases for Canonical XML  
1.1 [C14N11] and  XML Signature Syntax and Processing,  Second  
Edition [XMLSIG2]. Changes tested include C14N11 handling of  
attributes in the XML namespace, including xml:id, and xml:base,  
appropriate C14N11 nodeset to octet stream transform processing,  
modifications to RFC 3986 dot segment processing for C14N11 and  
RFC4514 string encoding of Distinguished Names.  Tests include stand  
alone C14N11 tests as well as tests integrated with signature  
generation and verification. This document also includes earlier test  
cases used in XML Signature for regression testing."

(3) Add space in XML output in examples (e.g. in section 3.3.2) so  
tables wrap properly with window size.

(4) Spellcheck document (e.g. "transfroms")

(5) Remove caveat bullet and editorial note in section 2.1, we did  
not use this.

(6) Remove editorial note in 3.1

(7) Editorial note in 3.2 from Konrad, we should record the following  
in the body of the section and remove the editorial note
"The signatures are signed using the HMAC algorithm with a secret key  
with the value: "secret".getBytes("ASCII")"

(8) remove editorial note in 3.2.4.1
"I propose that everybody takes a look and tries to identify if there  
is a missing test that would be worth to include."

In general we should review the various editorial notes.

regards, Frederick

Frederick Hirsch
Nokia
Received on Tuesday, 11 December 2007 12:43:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:22:03 GMT