W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xmlsec@w3.org > September 2009

Widget SIgnature Test assertions

From: Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 08:38:30 -0400
Cc: Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>
Message-Id: <C7DD1CB6-4D13-4B8E-8C70-D65CAE3FFDF7@nokia.com>
To: XMLSec WG Public List <public-xmlsec@w3.org>
Work progressing in web applications on testing XML Signature 1.1 in  
context of widget signatures.

Is anyone in this WG in a position to review or otherwise help with  
this effort?

regards, Frederick

Frederick Hirsch, Nokia
Chair XML Security WG

Begin forwarded message:

> From: ext Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
> Date: September 29, 2009 3:51:48 AM EDT
> To: Marcos Caceres <marcosc@opera.com>
> Cc: "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>, "public-mwts@w3.org 
> " <public-mwts@w3.org>
> Subject: [widget-digsig] Test assertions
> Hi Marcos,
> As Kai alluded to in his report [1], we had a chance to look at  
> Widgets
> Digital Signature last week to see what would be required to create  
> test
> cases for that specification.
> As part of that exploratory work, we started two documents similar to
> the ones that were developed for P&C:
> * a test suite edition of the spec, at:
> http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/Overview_TSE.html
> It marks up 17 test assertions for user agents
> * a test plan document where these test assertions appear,
> automatically extracted:
> http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-digsig/tests/
> We discussed (but haven't documented yet) that the test cases for  
> DigSig
> would be of two main types:
> * the ones testing the proper parsing of the signatures files, similar
> in the work done for config.xml in P&C
> * the ones that focus on the actual hash/signature validation
> algorithms
> Kai took an action item [3] to start working on tests cases; that  
> said,
> as I was the one working on marking up test assertions in the
> non-official test-suite-edition of DigSig, I noticed that DigSig seems
> much less testing-ready than P&C is (thanks to the huge efforts you've
> put in the TSE for that spec).
> For instance, DigSig considers signature files as class of products,
> where as these aspects would be better considered under either the
> generic user agent or the conformance checker angle; as a result, many
> of the MUST in the specs can't easily be linked to a test case in the
> current state of the spec - I only marked up the 17 ones that were
> fairly clearly testable.
> Are you considering putting the same kind of work in DigSig as you did
> in P&C to ease the testing phase? Could you look into the existing 17
> assertions as a starting point to see if they reflect realistically  
> the
> expected behavior of a user agent?
> Should you start working on a TSE for digSig, it would be great if you
> could keep the same test assertions ids I've started to use (although
> given their small number at this time, it wouldn't be a big deal if  
> you
> choose not to); note that I opted to use two-letters longs ids (e.g.
> ta-aa, ta-ab), rather than the 8-random-letters-long ones you picked  
> for
> P&C that made up for interesting discussions last week :) [2]
> Dom
> 1. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-mwts/2009Sep/0009.html
> 2. http://twitter.com/dontcallmedom/status/4311968310
> 3. http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/Tests/track/actions/82
Received on Tuesday, 29 September 2009 12:39:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:55:12 UTC