Looks good.
--Sean
On 5/24/18 8:16 PM, Weijun Wang wrote:
On May 24, 2018, at 11:39 PM, Sean Mullan wrote:
I think the MGF1 based SignatureMethod algs should be named SHA256_RSA_MGF1,
etc to be consistent with the URI names in the RFC.
Updated.
I've also updated my local code, no new w
Ping again.
> On May 25, 2018, at 8:16 AM, Weijun Wang wrote:
>
>
>
>> On May 24, 2018, at 11:39 PM, Sean Mullan wrote:
>>
>> I think the MGF1 based SignatureMethod algs should be named SHA256_RSA_MGF1,
>> etc to be consistent with the URI names in the RFC.
>
> Updated.
>
> I've also upda
> On May 24, 2018, at 11:39 PM, Sean Mullan wrote:
>
> I think the MGF1 based SignatureMethod algs should be named SHA256_RSA_MGF1,
> etc to be consistent with the URI names in the RFC.
Updated.
I've also updated my local code, no new webrev.
>
> Otherwise the update looks good.
>
> I thi
I think the MGF1 based SignatureMethod algs should be named
SHA256_RSA_MGF1, etc to be consistent with the URI names in the RFC.
Otherwise the update looks good.
I think we should also file an RFE to add a new RSAPSSParams class
(which would be a subclass of SignatureMethodParameterSpec), and
Updated. I'm now using uri.substr(uri.indexOf("#") + 1).toUpperCase() as the
names.
Thanks
Max
> On May 24, 2018, at 4:47 AM, Sean Mullan wrote:
>
> I don't think you should change the names of the algorithms to the JCE style
> (eg: SHA1withDSA). You should keep the names as defined by the W3
I don't think you should change the names of the algorithms to the JCE
style (eg: SHA1withDSA). You should keep the names as defined by the W3C
Recommendation and related RFCs. Even if the naming convention is
different than JCE, these are the names that were chosen by the
standards bodies and
Please take a review at
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8203460
The current XMLDSig provider implementation is based on Apache Santuario 1.5.4.
We'll update it to be 2.1.1. New algorithms are added.
Thanks
Max
