Re: [security-services] Bug in the bindings doc; wrong RFC

[Greg Whitehead <grw@trustgenix.com>]

Sure enough, it looks like I got it wrong too... and I did the original 
experiments to make sure that we could do what we wanted with 
off-the-shelf libraries. :-(

In Java, It looks like one can use Deflater with the constructor that 
takes the 'nowrap' parameter.

-Greg

On Feb 7, 2005, at 12:31 PM, Scott Cantor wrote:

>> If DEFLATE/RFC1951 is what was intended, and what is still desired, 
>> then
>> the specification is correct, although it is missing a bibliography
>> entry for the actual RFC.
>
> Yes, this is definitely what was intended, and it does reference 1951 
> in
> that section, but the bib. entry is missing.
>
>> I will point out, however, that everyone seems to have implemented it
>> wrong.  Let me emphasize that:  everyone. Certainly, some of this is 
>> the
>> fault of errors in the Java documentation.  But it also has to make 
>> you
>> wonder if the spec itself doesn't, somehow, need improvement.
>
> Well, it could say "don't be fooled by the incorrect Sun 
> documentation", I
> guess. ;-) Did anybody get it wrong that *wasn't* using Java or was 
> led to
> assume that the output of the Java classes was to be trusted?
>
> I did think we needed samples to validate with because I didn't trust 
> any
> particular library without independent verification that it was 
> producing
> nothing but the DEFLATE stream. I'd be curious if the samples in the 
> spec
> are correct. I produced them by hand by attempting to strip the gzip 
> header
> off the output of gzip itself.
>
> I asked a few times for people to give me samples I could verify with 
> so
> that we'd flag any problems...
>
> -- Scott
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: 
> security-services-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: 
> security-services-help@lists.oasis-open.org