W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org > April to June 2002

Re: Y4 Exclusive C145n interop; was Re: c14n/exc-c14n interop samples

From: merlin <merlin@baltimore.ie>
Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 13:18:03 +0100
To: Christian Geuer-Pollmann <geuer-pollmann@nue.et-inf.uni-siegen.de>
Cc: Aleksey Sanin <aleksey@aleksey.com>, w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org
Message-Id: <20020531121803.E605A4432D@yog-sothoth.ie.baltimore.com>
Hi Christian,

I've tweaked the input document slightly to show a few more
edge cases if you're interested; see attached:

Merlin

r/geuer-pollmann@nue.et-inf.uni-siegen.de/2002.05.31/10:28:19
>Hi Merlin,
>hi Aleksey,
>
>
>OK, my "Y4 does not verify" is a little bit fuzzy. Let's describe in more 
>detail where my problems are:
>
>I Merlin's Y4 example, there are 27 References (c14n-0.txt ... c14n-26.txt) 
>and the c14nized SignedInfo (c14n-27.txt). The following list refers to 
>these indices:
>
>For Apache, I cannot verify 8/27 References:
>
>Reference  1 failed
>Reference  2 failed
>Reference  3 failed
>Reference  6 failed
>Reference  7 failed
>Reference  8 failed
>Reference 24 failed
>Reference 26 failed
>
>Reference  0 was OK
>Reference  4 was OK
>Reference  5 was OK
>Reference  9 was OK
>Reference 10 was OK
>Reference 11 was OK
>Reference 12 was OK
>Reference 13 was OK
>Reference 14 was OK
>Reference 15 was OK
>Reference 16 was OK
>Reference 17 was OK
>Reference 18 was OK
>Reference 19 was OK
>Reference 20 was OK
>Reference 21 was OK
>Reference 22 was OK
>Reference 23 was OK
>Reference 25 was OK
>
>DISCLAIMER: But even for those which I can verify, I'm not sure that it's 
>correct and that they should verify.
>
>Regards,
>Christian
>


Received on Friday, 31 May 2002 08:19:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.29 : Thursday, 13 January 2005 12:10:15 GMT