Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-cxf-dev-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-cxf-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 764B5964F for ; Thu, 12 Apr 2012 13:27:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 64562 invoked by uid 500); 12 Apr 2012 13:27:04 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-cxf-dev-archive@cxf.apache.org Received: (qmail 64516 invoked by uid 500); 12 Apr 2012 13:27:04 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cxf.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@cxf.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@cxf.apache.org Received: (qmail 64508 invoked by uid 99); 12 Apr 2012 13:27:04 -0000 Received: from minotaur.apache.org (HELO minotaur.apache.org) (140.211.11.9) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 12 Apr 2012 13:27:04 +0000 Received: from localhost (HELO mail-ob0-f169.google.com) (127.0.0.1) (smtp-auth username coheigea, mechanism plain) by minotaur.apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 12 Apr 2012 13:27:03 +0000 Received: by obbup16 with SMTP id up16so2093897obb.0 for ; Thu, 12 Apr 2012 06:27:03 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.182.64.45 with SMTP id l13mr3118229obs.7.1334237223007; Thu, 12 Apr 2012 06:27:03 -0700 (PDT) Reply-To: coheigea@apache.org Received: by 10.182.143.103 with HTTP; Thu, 12 Apr 2012 06:27:02 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1334233452868-5635486.post@n5.nabble.com> References: <4F8589B3.80604@imaginea.com> <4F85A805.9030709@imaginea.com> <4F865E8E.6000907@imaginea.com> <1334233452868-5635486.post@n5.nabble.com> Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 14:27:02 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Signing SAML assertions for OWSM policies From: Colm O hEigeartaigh To: dev@cxf.apache.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Do you have a test-case that reproduces the problem? Several of the tests in the link I sent you sign the SAML Assertion... Colm. On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 1:24 PM, shwetank wrote: > i've made sure that i follow all steps as-is, yet the problem persists. > what does a signed assertion look like..as the server expects it be? > what insight may i derive on reasons of this error..why would CXF not sign > the message as the policy expects it to? > is this a defect? > > -- > View this message in context: http://cxf.547215.n5.nabble.com/Signing-SAML-assertions-for-OWSM-policies-tp5632914p5635486.html > Sent from the cxf-dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- Colm O hEigeartaigh Talend Community Coder http://coders.talend.com