Re: Test vectors for draft-eastlake-xmldsig-uri-02.txt

Hi Christian,

I seem to be in discord with your HMAC/SHA-384 and HMAC/SHA-512
signatures, which would lead me to suggest that either your, or
my, HMAC block size is incorrect in these instances.

Similarly, I am at variance with all three of your RSA/SHA-variant
signatures. Poking about, it appears that you may have used OAEP,
as mentioned in [1], although even with this assumption I failed
(with the minimal effort I put in) to achieve harmony.

Attached are my attempts at same, with the following caveat:

Donald, I believe (but will gladly yield to anyone who knows)
that OAEP only applies to the use of RSA for encryption, and
that PKCS#1 padding remains safe and appropriate for RSA
signatures, so your thought under section 2.3.2 might bear
removal.

Merlin

[1] http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-eastlake-xmldsig-uri-02.txt

r/geuer-pollmann@nue.et-inf.uni-siegen.de/2002.01.30/14:34:26
>Hi Donald,
>
>please find attached some test vectors for [1].
>
>Regards,
>Christian
>
>[1] 
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-ietf-xmldsig/2002JanMar/0038.html
>


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

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