[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: RE: [security-services] the "NotOnOrAfter" issue
>> >>RL 'Bob' Morgan wrote: >>> >>> >>> Can you suggest some improved text on these points? >> >>Fair enough, how about: >> >>s/NotOnOrAfter/NotAfter/ and then apply the same rules as are used >>for X.509, that is: >> >>- MUST be 4 character years This is part of the dateTime datatype *DEFINITION* in XML schema. http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#dateTime >>- all times in UTC (i.e. no local times, no daylight savings) This is part of the dateTime datatype *DEFINITION* in XML schema. The definition also includes detailed rules on comparision of dateTime values. >>- mandatory one-second resolution (e.g. MUST include '00' seconds if >> necessary) I don't have an issue with this. I assume this is would be stated as a RECOMMENDATION rather than a MUST. - prateek
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC