- From: Sean Mullan <Sean.Mullan@Sun.COM>
- Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 13:04:08 -0400
- To: XMLSec <public-xmlsec-maintwg@w3.org>
Juan Carlos did a great job on this section, but there are too many DName test cases for me to complete by tomorrow [1]. So, in the interests of time, I think we should concentrate on what I think are the more important cases, based on the current XML DSig draft: - differences between RFC 2253 and RFC 4514 that may introduce interoperability problems. These are the tests in section 3.5.1. I have added two additional tests as mentioned in my previous email. - for section 3.5.2, I think we should concentrate on cases in which a generator has applied the OPTIONAL encoding steps as defined in section 4.4.4.1 [2]. I think this is important, as it tests whether a verifier can still parse the DNs and that they are still RFC 4514 compliant. So I propose we remove the following test cases (for now, anyway): xmldsig/dnString-1-positive xmldsig/dnString-2-positive xmldsig/dnString-3-positive xmldsig/dnString-5-positive xmldsig/dnString-7-positive (very similar to 6) xmldsig/dnString-9-positive (very similar to 8) Please let me know if you have any comments by end of today. --Sean [1] http://www.w3.org/2007/xmlsec/interop/xmlsig-interop-doc/testcases.html#TestCases-DistinguishedName [2] http://www.w3.org/2007/xmlsec/Drafts/xmldsig-core/#dname-encrules
Received on Thursday, 13 September 2007 17:04:33 UTC