Cool, I will add tomorrow night.
Thanks!
Cheers,
Berin
Davanum Srinivas wrote:
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28872
-- dims
On Mon, 10 May 2004 19:52:19 +1000, Berin Lautenbach
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yah. I wanted to have another look tonight (just got to my com
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28872
-- dims
On Mon, 10 May 2004 19:52:19 +1000, Berin Lautenbach
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Yah. I wanted to have another look tonight (just got to my computer)
> and come back formally on that on the list.
>
> (Mind you - we really shoul
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
My patch don't handle well this test case. It seems that it take on
account that the signed info is going to be c14n, reparsed &
reimported. But this is not alway the case. The SignedInfo is not c14n
and reimported if the c14n method is "safe". As stated in the
Looks like merlin-xmldsig-sixteen has been deprecratedand we are
WAY behind the times, we need to update to latest interop tests
-
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-ietf-xmldsig/2002AprJun/att-0016/01-merlin-xmldsig-twenty-three.tar.gz
-
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-ietf-xml
Hi,
My patch don't handle well this test case. It seems that it take on
account that the signed info is going to be c14n, reparsed & reimported.
But this is not alway the case. The SignedInfo is not c14n and
reimported if the c14n method is "safe". As stated in the second
paragraph of this
