W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xkms@w3.org > September 2004

Fwd: Interop Tests

From: Tommy Lindberg <tommy.lindberg@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 12:35:49 +0100
Message-ID: <18ec59cc0409200435528ccfd4@mail.gmail.com>
To: www-xkms@w3.org
And to the list too.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Tommy Lindberg <tommy.lindberg@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 12:34:38 +0100
Subject: Re: Interop Tests
To: Guillermo Álvaro Rey <alvarorg@cs.tcd.ie>

Hi Guillermo -

> - If we want to test the validation of revoked or expired certs (T[4-5])
> we should have those defined. Shouldn't we?

I added keys for Eric and Ralph that are expired and revoked
respectively.  You will have to edit the document (T4 and T5) to
reflect these key holders.  For the future I propose additional
Validate test cases that include X509 CRL's with and without revoked
X509 certs (for which I will provide CRL's).

> - In the Test Collection site we defined tests with keys bound to the
> domain example.com. However, the existing keys right now are related to
> domains such as alicecorp.ie or bobcorp.ie. Is it OK to state in the
> Report site that we located a key bounded to other domain different to
> the one stated in the test definition?

I created keys for Alice and Bob with bindings to example.com.

> - Only last two tests use Soap Bindings. Jose and myself were discussing
> about the convenience of testing most of the cases over Soap1.2 and then
> just one for plain-http and Soap1.1. Should that approach be used for
> next test collection or would a change need to be done now...?

I (claim to) support all three bindings so I am neutral to this.
However, as SOAP 1.2 is the only required transport binding it would
make sense to give it more attention.  I also note that my SOAP 1.2
endpoint has seen the least traffic ...

Comment about T7:  The text around the "two status requests" makes
assumptions about the delay in processing and notifiying the
completion of an asynchronous request.  In the case of my server, the
asynchronous processing is currently automated as is the notification.
 This makes highly unlikely that the first StatusRequest will return
status Pending.   There possibilities to solve this; 1) I configure
the service for manual notification or 2) change the text for T7 so
that it does not require a Pending StatusResult.

Comment about T9 - T12: I do not currently support Compound requests.
As I stated in the original response to Jose's call for interop
participation, it is likely that I will do this; more so than before.

My service endpoint has been updated with the revised keyset which I attach.


Received on Monday, 20 September 2004 11:35:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:31:43 UTC