> This is to update the method javadoc of
> java.security.Signature.getParameters() with the missing `@throws
> UnsupportedOperationException`. In addition, the wording on the returned
> parameters are updated to match those in Cipher and CipherSpi classes.
>
> CSR will be filed later.
>
>
On Tue, 17 May 2022 23:11:06 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote:
>> Valerie Peng has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> more minor cleanups for consistencies.
>
> src/java.base/share/classes/java/security/SignatureSpi.java line 377:
>
>>
On Tue, 17 May 2022 22:22:36 GMT, Valerie Peng wrote:
>> This is to update the method javadoc of
>> java.security.Signature.getParameters() with the missing `@throws
>> UnsupportedOperationException`. In addition, the wording on the returned
>> parameters are updated to match those in Cipher
> This is to update the method javadoc of
> java.security.Signature.getParameters() with the missing `@throws
> UnsupportedOperationException`. In addition, the wording on the returned
> parameters are updated to match those in Cipher and CipherSpi classes.
>
> CSR will be filed later.
>
>
On Mon, 16 May 2022 13:28:13 GMT, Sean Mullan wrote:
>> With this modification of 2nd sentence. The whole paragraph becomes:
>>
>> * The returned parameters may be the same that were used to
>> initialize
>> * this signature, or may contain additional default or random parameter
>>
> This is to update the method javadoc of
> java.security.Signature.getParameters() with the missing `@throws
> UnsupportedOperationException`. In addition, the wording on the returned
> parameters are updated to match those in Cipher and CipherSpi classes.
>
> CSR will be filed later.
>
>
On Fri, 13 May 2022 20:58:16 GMT, Valerie Peng wrote:
>> src/java.base/share/classes/java/security/Signature.java line 1012:
>>
>>> 1010: * values used by the underlying signature scheme. If the required
>>> 1011: * parameters were not supplied and can be generated by the
>>>
On Fri, 13 May 2022 20:29:11 GMT, Sean Mullan wrote:
>> Valerie Peng has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> fix newline.
>
> src/java.base/share/classes/java/security/Signature.java line 1012:
>
>> 1010: * values used by
On Fri, 13 May 2022 19:35:35 GMT, Valerie Peng wrote:
>> This is to update the method javadoc of
>> java.security.Signature.getParameters() with the missing `@throws
>> UnsupportedOperationException`. In addition, the wording on the returned
>> parameters are updated to match those in Cipher
> This is to update the method javadoc of
> java.security.Signature.getParameters() with the missing `@throws
> UnsupportedOperationException`. In addition, the wording on the returned
> parameters are updated to match those in Cipher and CipherSpi classes.
>
> CSR will be filed later.
>
>
> This is to update the method javadoc of
> java.security.Signature.getParameters() with the missing `@throws
> UnsupportedOperationException`. In addition, the wording on the returned
> parameters are updated to match those in Cipher and CipherSpi classes.
>
> CSR will be filed later.
>
>
On Fri, 13 May 2022 14:35:56 GMT, Sean Mullan wrote:
>> Hmm, would it fall under the "Otherwise, null is returned"? If not, perhaps
>> we can add back the part about returning AlgorithmParameters as below:
>>
>> **If the underlying signature implementation supports returning the
>> parameters
On Thu, 12 May 2022 19:45:37 GMT, Valerie Peng wrote:
>> That sentence is specifically if the caller did not specify parameters
>> though. The previous wording is if the caller did specify parameters (as say
>> an `AlgorithmParameterSpec`) and the implementation cannot return them as
>>
On Thu, 12 May 2022 18:23:18 GMT, Sean Mullan wrote:
>> Fixed the nit. Thanks~
>> As for the part about returning the parameters as `{@code
>> AlgorithmParameters}`, it should be covered by current sentence, i.e. `and
>> can be generated by the signature`. Perhaps we don't have to spell out
On Wed, 11 May 2022 22:12:48 GMT, Valerie Peng wrote:
>> src/java.base/share/classes/java/security/SignatureSpi.java line 399:
>>
>>> 397: * values used by the underlying signature scheme. If the required
>>> 398: * parameters were not supplied and can be generated by the
>>>
On Thu, 12 May 2022 00:21:34 GMT, Valerie Peng wrote:
>> This is to update the method javadoc of
>> java.security.Signature.getParameters() with the missing `@throws
>> UnsupportedOperationException`. In addition, the wording on the returned
>> parameters are updated to match those in Cipher
> This is to update the method javadoc of
> java.security.Signature.getParameters() with the missing `@throws
> UnsupportedOperationException`. In addition, the wording on the returned
> parameters are updated to match those in Cipher and CipherSpi classes.
>
> CSR will be filed later.
>
>
On Tue, 10 May 2022 20:42:55 GMT, Sean Mullan wrote:
>> Valerie Peng has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a
>> merge or a rebase. The incremental webrev excludes the unrelated changes
>> brought in by the merge/rebase. The pull request contains four additional
>> commits
On Mon, 9 May 2022 18:45:05 GMT, Valerie Peng wrote:
>> This is to update the method javadoc of
>> java.security.Signature.getParameters() with the missing `@throws
>> UnsupportedOperationException`. In addition, the wording on the returned
>> parameters are updated to match those in Cipher
On Mon, 9 May 2022 18:45:05 GMT, Valerie Peng wrote:
>> This is to update the method javadoc of
>> java.security.Signature.getParameters() with the missing `@throws
>> UnsupportedOperationException`. In addition, the wording on the returned
>> parameters are updated to match those in Cipher
> This is to update the method javadoc of
> java.security.Signature.getParameters() with the missing `@throws
> UnsupportedOperationException`. In addition, the wording on the returned
> parameters are updated to match those in Cipher and CipherSpi classes.
>
> CSR will be filed later.
>
>
> This is to update the method javadoc of
> java.security.Signature.getParameters() with the missing `@throws
> UnsupportedOperationException`. In addition, the wording on the returned
> parameters are updated to match those in Cipher and CipherSpi classes.
>
> CSR will be filed later.
>
>
On Wed, 4 May 2022 04:16:42 GMT, Xue-Lei Andrew Fan wrote:
>> How about the case when no parameters are given? Say A is the user-supplied
>> values, B is the provider specific default or random values, your suggestion
>> has A, A+B, and null. Isn't the sentence about B needed (no A and
On Thu, 5 May 2022 22:03:16 GMT, Valerie Peng wrote:
>> I think this sentence covers case B, "... or may contain additional default
>> or random parameter
>> values used by the underlying signature implementation."
>
> Sean's comment on the other PR regarding Cipher.getParameters implies
>
On Tue, 3 May 2022 00:17:11 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote:
>> An example is RSASSA-PSS, i.e. it requires the caller to explicitly state
>> which message digest to use, etc.
>
> You listed 2 cases when null is returned: 1) not supplied. 2) cannot
> generate. My understanding is that the RSASSA-PSS
On Mon, 2 May 2022 21:42:28 GMT, Valerie Peng wrote:
>>> What kind of additional sentence do you have in mind?
>>
>> It may be fine to put it into the state for 'null" returned value. For
>> example:
>>
>>
>> The returned parameters may be the same that were used to initialize
>> this
On Mon, 2 May 2022 21:14:21 GMT, Valerie Peng wrote:
>> Then what does "cannot generate parameter values" mean? Any example?
>
> An example is RSASSA-PSS, i.e. it requires the caller to explicitly state
> which message digest to use, etc.
You listed 2 cases when null is returned: 1) not
On Fri, 29 Apr 2022 04:27:36 GMT, Xue-Lei Andrew Fan wrote:
>> What kind of additional sentence do you have in mind?
>
>> What kind of additional sentence do you have in mind?
>
> It may be fine to put it into the state for 'null" returned value. For
> example:
>
>
> The returned parameters
On Thu, 28 Apr 2022 23:28:39 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote:
>> The impl does not need to generate parameter values, but rather cannot
>> convert the supplied parameter values into AlgorithmParameter objects. By
>> parameter values, I mean the components of the parameters.
>
> Then what does "cannot
On Thu, 28 Apr 2022 23:09:00 GMT, Valerie Peng wrote:
> What kind of additional sentence do you have in mind?
It may be fine to put it into the state for 'null" returned value. For example:
The returned parameters may be the same that were used to initialize
this signature, or may contain
On Thu, 28 Apr 2022 23:22:30 GMT, Valerie Peng wrote:
>> I suggest the last sentence to be "null is returned if the required
>> parameters were not supplied **or** the underlying signature implementation
>> cannot generate the parameter values." I used "or" because for EdDSA
>> parameters are
On Thu, 28 Apr 2022 23:14:56 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote:
>> I assume you were suggesting this? `"The returned parameters may be the same
>> that were used to initialize this signature, or may contain additional
>> default or random parameter values used by the underlying signature
>>
On Thu, 28 Apr 2022 23:08:17 GMT, Valerie Peng wrote:
>> So, "the underlying signature implementation supports returning the
>> parameters as {@code AlgorithmParameters}" is quite necessary. Xuelei's
>> suggestion is quite good, just change the last "and" to "or".
>
> I assume you were
On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 23:02:28 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote:
>> Right, the user-supplied values takes precedence and provider-specific
>> default/random values should just be supplemental.
>>
>> As for EdDSA, looks like the prehash and context are only in RFC 8032 and
>> NOT RFC 8410. caller has to
On Thu, 28 Apr 2022 04:56:47 GMT, Xue-Lei Andrew Fan wrote:
>>> Can you clarify what is the A and B that you are referring to?
>>
>> The sentence is, “If the required parameters were not supplied and the
>> underlying signature implementation can generate the parameter values, it
>> will be
On Thu, 28 Apr 2022 04:44:43 GMT, Xue-Lei Andrew Fan wrote:
>>> > What does it refer to with 'it'? Is 'it' refer to the implementation
>>> > generated parameter values?
>>>
>>> 'It' refers to the parameters containing all of the parameter values
>>> including the supplied ones and
On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 23:35:19 GMT, Valerie Peng wrote:
>> With Signature class, there is a caveat for EdDSA, the supplied parameters
>> are set but null is being returned when getParameters() is called. This is
>> currently covered by the condition `if the underlying signature
>>
On Thu, 28 Apr 2022 04:41:20 GMT, Xue-Lei Andrew Fan wrote:
>> Besides this Signature-specific condition, there is the common condition
>> where provider cannot (or do not) generate default parameter values. {@code
>> null} is used as the catch-all result, but as you said, describe various
>>
On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 23:30:22 GMT, Valerie Peng wrote:
>> Can you clarify what is the A and B that you are referring to? The way I
>> read it, it has more than 2 conditions... So, best to clarify the conditions
>> first.
>> I see your point with the wording suggestion at the end. Was a bit
On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 23:19:56 GMT, Valerie Peng wrote:
>>> What does it refer to with 'it'? Is 'it' refer to the implementation
>>> generated parameter values?
>>
>> 'It' refers to the parameters containing all of the parameter values
>> including the supplied ones and provider-generated ones
On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 23:15:41 GMT, Valerie Peng wrote:
>> src/java.base/share/classes/java/security/Signature.java line 1014:
>>
>>> 1012: * {@code AlgorithmParameters}. If the required
>>> 1013: * parameters were not supplied and the underlying signature
>>> implementation
>>> 1014:
On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 05:25:42 GMT, Xue-Lei Andrew Fan wrote:
>> Valerie Peng has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Undo un-intentional changes.
>
> src/java.base/share/classes/java/security/Signature.java line 1012:
>
>> 1010:
On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 22:54:47 GMT, Valerie Peng wrote:
>> RSASSA-PSS always requires a user-provided params.
>>
>> I think one thing we can guarantee is that the default/random values
>> generated by the impl will never overwrite the user-provided ones, they will
>> only be supplemented. Also,
On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 15:10:42 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote:
>> I searched about "and/or" and it is said that "or" covers "and". So,
>> "and/or" should just be "or".
>>
>> I am on the fence for requiring provider to generate default parameters
>> (using provider-specific or random values). Could
On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 00:35:49 GMT, Valerie Peng wrote:
>> src/java.base/share/classes/java/security/Signature.java line 1015:
>>
>>> 1013: * parameters were not supplied and the underlying signature
>>> implementation
>>> 1014: * can generate the parameter values, it will be returned.
On Tue, 26 Apr 2022 17:51:45 GMT, Valerie Peng wrote:
>> This is to update the method javadoc of
>> java.security.Signature.getParameters() with the missing `@throws
>> UnsupportedOperationException`. In addition, the wording on the returned
>> parameters are updated to match those in Cipher
On Tue, 26 Apr 2022 14:59:35 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote:
>> Valerie Peng has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Undo un-intentional changes.
>
> src/java.base/share/classes/java/security/Signature.java line 1015:
>
>> 1013: *
> This is to update the method javadoc of
> java.security.Signature.getParameters() with the missing `@throws
> UnsupportedOperationException`. In addition, the wording on the returned
> parameters are updated to match those in Cipher and CipherSpi classes.
>
> CSR will be filed later.
>
>
On Tue, 26 Apr 2022 14:51:31 GMT, Weijun Wang wrote:
>> This is to update the method javadoc of
>> java.security.Signature.getParameters() with the missing `@throws
>> UnsupportedOperationException`. In addition, the wording on the returned
>> parameters are updated to match those in Cipher
On Tue, 26 Apr 2022 02:59:48 GMT, Valerie Peng wrote:
> This is to update the method javadoc of
> java.security.Signature.getParameters() with the missing `@throws
> UnsupportedOperationException`. In addition, the wording on the returned
> parameters are updated to match those in Cipher and
50 matches
Mail list logo
