DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT <http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43685>. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43685 ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-12-07 13:02 ------- (In reply to comment #6) > Ah, ok, that's more reasonable. ;-) > > To answer your question, I can't say what the Java does, but I'm fairly sure > the > C++ version treats an empty prefix list the same as if the element wasn't > there > at all, which is what makes sense to me. Yes, from browsing the Java code, this appears to be what we also do. > So if the Java's not doing that, I'd say it should be. But that said, sending > an > empty prefix list is at least "bad form" if nothing else. According to the Exc-C14N recommendation, it is legal. I haven't had time to look at this issue yet, and likely won't until after the New Year. If you can get the Reference's canonicalized bytes when signing with the BEA implementation and put this in the bug report, that would help tremendously. Otherwise, it will be mostly a guessing game as to what the problem is (or whose fault it is). Also, have you tried validating the signature with another implementation? -- Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
