On 4/6/11 8:28 PM, "David Wall" <[email protected]> wrote: >On 4/6/2011 5:01 PM, Cantor, Scott E. wrote: >> The advice from the other poster was >> correct, you should be using Enveloped followed by Excl C14N, period. > >Does this mean CanonicalizationMethod.INCLUSIVE_WITH_COMMENTS or >INCLUSIVE shouldn't be used?
With SAML? Not in general, no. With any ID-based signature, using a WithComments method is a waste of time, it won't work anyway. The reasons are long and boring, but your comments aren't signed. > Seems like all the examples online show the inclusive with comments. Not SAML examples. -- Scott
