Re: Issue in spec examples

Hi Martin -

You are right - thanks for reporting this.  This is my mistake and I will
produce updated sample bundles.

Are the following values what you get in the two cases respectively and in
the order you refer to them in your message:

Is:
First pass revocation code =  PHx8li2SUhrJv2e1DyeWbGbD6rs=
Second pass revocation code = 5AEAai06hFJEkuqyDyqNh8k/u3M=

Should be:

First pass revocation code = HAhXyVRYwm9EMn79DvBVsIytXHg=
Second pass revocation code = 5rRN2cOZiMlciJxBqaelrZDCzSE=

Is:
First pass revocation code = Ben38d3ved3FOSxgWw/B5anHM2o=
Second pass revocation code = TD4zyGKCIHCJgKk4i+BUN1HFXWE=

Should be:

First pass revocation code = pdIcyMGh9VPIx6W80Www1mlsRA4=
Second pass revocation code = tfmE05IHHuxTv3OT3WgHA5gnyLI=

Regards,
Tommy


On 2/13/06, Martin Pirker <Martin.Pirker@iaik.tugraz.at> wrote:
>
> Hello working group...
>
> Pondering the XKMS specs I noticed following:
>
> In the current (20050628) spec version the Revocation(...)
> elements in the examples in section 6.1.1 and 6.3.1 appear wrong.
> The listed pass phrase is "Help I have revealed my key",
> but to get the shown spec values one has to compute with
> "helpihaverevealedmykey".
>
> This seems to be an oversight from issue 335-jk [1], where the
> preparation algorithmen was changed and not all examples
> regenerated.
> If one looks in the 20040405 spec version, in C.2.1 one can see
> the calculation of the value which is still in the current spec.
>
> This issue doesn't appear on the errate list (yet)?
>
>
> On debugging this I got temporarily confused by the examples
> in [2], ..xkrss/readme suggests e.g.
> Messages:
>    synchronous/register-request-synchronous-2.xml
>    synchronous/revoke-request-synchronous-1.xml
> Revocation = "Revoke My Key"
>
> But to recreate the Revocation... values one has to use
> "revoke my key", which is neither "old" or "current" spec
> string preparation?
>
>
> HTH,
> Martin
>
>
> [1]
> http://www.w3.org/2001/XKMS/Drafts/cr-issues/issues.html#335-jk
> (notice too that the "raised" date in the description is wrong,
> it should read 2004 and not 2005)
>
> [2]
> http://www.w3.org/2001/XKMS/Drafts/test-suite/tl-xkms-06-04-2005.zip
>
>
>