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

Re: Exclusive C14n Interoperability Report

From: Aleksey Sanin <aleksey@aleksey.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 16:40:50 -0800
Message-ID: <3C929492.3080607@aleksey.com>
To: TAMURA Kent <kent@trl.ibm.co.jp>, w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org
FYI:
I tested my C14N and Exc-C14N implementation (http://xmlsoft.org) using 
the same test file (exc-signature.xml in 
http://www.w3.org/Signature/2002/02/01-exc-c14n-interop.html).
The test program loaded the document once and executed (exc-)c14n 
10000 times on PIII-900 + Linux 2.4.18 (the time for loading and 
parsing document is *NOT* included) with following results:
  
   C14n: 4550 [ms]
   Exclusive C14n: 4500 [ms]

There were no visible difference in doing c14n with or without comments.
The program was compiled using gcc-2.96 using w/o optimization 
(debug mode).

Joseph, please remove question marks for libxml on iterop report 
(http://www.w3.org/Signature/2002/02/01-exc-c14n-interop.html) since it
does support "#default" prefix and the performance does exceed c14n 
performance.

Thanks,

Aleksey.


TAMURA Kent wrote:

>This is a report with an IBM implementation
>	http://www.alphaworks.ibm.com/forum/xmlsecuritysuite.nsf/current
># The latest public release does not have an exclusive c14n
># implemenataion conforming to CR yet.
>
>Not rendering ...:	Y1
>The first occurence ..:	Y1
>InclusiveNamespaces ..:	Y1
>The "#default" ...:	Y1
>Performance:
>	C14n:			53037 [ms]
>	Exclusive C14n:		72584 [ms]
>	Xerces2 serializer:	13219 [ms]
>  These are time for serializing a DOM tree representing a small
>  document 10000 times.  Note that we have not done any
>  optimization yet.
>
Received on Friday, 15 March 2002 19:42:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.29 : Thursday, 13 January 2005 12:10:14 GMT