Re: interoperability efforts?

Hi Joseph/Brian/Hans,

I attach two gzipped tarchives containing some sample signatures
based (hopefully) on the current editor's draft of the spec:

  http://www.w3.org/Signature/Drafts/xmldsig-core/Overview.html

Relevant namespaces are:

  <!ENTITY dsig "http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#">
  <!ENTITY c14n "http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/CR-xml-c14n-20001026">
  <!ENTITY xpath "http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-xpath-19991116">
  <!ENTITY xslt "http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-xslt-19991116">

The first archive contains a few separate signatures that exercise
different basic things (enveloped/enveloping/detached/base 64, DSA,
RSA, HMAC, truncated HMAC); in each case, intermediate C14N is
included.

The second archive contains a more vomitous signature that exercises
local references of the form "", "#foo", "#xpointer(/)",
"#xpointer(id('foo'))", with and without comments, local and
external base 64 decoding, manifests, signature properties,
XSL and XPath transforms including use of the here() function
for an effective enveloped-reference transform. Again, all the
intermediate C14N is included.

As always, these aren't tested beyond the resolution of my eyeball.

All feedback welcome.

Merlin

r/reagle@w3.org/2001.03.08/16:53:00
>Hans,
>
>Our testing has been relatively informal. There's been some peer exchanges, 
>as well as tar balls of examples sent to the list that others run through 
>their implementation. This is what we've been doing for the purposes of our 
>interoperability report [1] -- which will need to be updated once we move 
>Canonical XML to REC because the URI for its algorithm will change. So I'd 
>recommend trying the tar ball reference in [1], and if everything goes 
>smoothly, feel free to create your own with more exotic/boundary examples.
>
>[1] http://www.w3.org/Signature/2000/10/17-xmldsig-interop.html
>
>At 11:32 3/8/2001 -0800, Hans Granqvist wrote:
>>Is there any ongoing efforts among DSig implementers to
>>participate in interoperability tests? We have a full DSig
>>implementation and we'd like to see how it stacks up. (If
>>you want to try our toolkit, email me for a URL to download
>>it.)
>>
>>I searched both the archives of this list, and the W3C member
>>pages, and found nothing mentioning interop (except an IETF
>>meeting in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, June/July, 2000).
>>
>>If there is no interop going on, I'd propose we start one.
>>Any ideas how to do it 'properly'?
>>
>>Thanks,
>>/Hans
>>--
>>Hans Granqvist, Verisign XML Web Services, +1 650 429-5369, GMT-8
>>
>>PS. Can the QA workshop [1] (which mentions conformance testing)
>>and its members be part of this?
>>
>>[1] http://www.w3.org/2001/01/qa-ws/
>
>
>__
>Joseph Reagle Jr.                 http://www.w3.org/People/Reagle/
>W3C Policy Analyst                mailto:reagle@w3.org
>IETF/W3C XML-Signature Co-Chair   http://www.w3.org/Signature
>W3C XML Encryption Chair          http://www.w3.org/Encryption/2001/


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baltimore Technologies plc will not be liable for direct,  special,  indirect 
or consequential  damages  arising  from  alteration of  the contents of this
message by a third party or as a result of any virus being passed on.

In addition, certain Marketing collateral may be added from time to time to
promote Baltimore Technologies products, services, Global e-Security or
appearance at trade shows and conferences.

This footnote confirms that this email message has been swept by
Baltimore MIMEsweeper for Content Security threats, including
computer viruses.
   http://www.baltimore.com