From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27708 invoked by alias); 26 Oct 2004 17:09:19 -0000 Mailing-List: contact mauve-discuss-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: mauve-discuss-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 27700 invoked from network); 26 Oct 2004 17:09:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO unmodern.net) (63.249.108.128) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 26 Oct 2004 17:09:17 -0000 Received: by unmodern.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 20D1639; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 10:09:17 -0700 (PDT) To: tromey@redhat.com Cc: mauve-discuss@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: X.509 certificate tests References: <878y9um3q2.fsf@gnu.org> From: Casey Marshall Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 17:09:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: (Tom Tromey's message of "26 Oct 2004 09:45:48 -0600") Message-ID: <87mzy9h0ea.fsf@gnu.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.1002 (Gnus v5.10.2) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2004-q4/txt/msg00025.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Tom" == Tom Tromey writes: Casey> I've repackaged the implementation of the PKITS [1] test suite Casey> I wrote for the X.509 implementation I have been working on Casey> (and, might be putting into Classpath) for Mauve. Tom> Is this something that would fit into the existing mauve Tom> approach? If not we can always make a new module in cvs. I don't see why not; all of the tests are very simple, and follow the same pattern: parse some certificates, give them to the CertPathValidator, and get a "yes" or "no" answer at the end. The only really problematic part are the certificate data: they are about 2.6M of binary goo. Any problem with including them? -- Casey Marshall || csm@gnu.org