RE: [security-services] the "NotOnOrAfter" issue

["Mishra, Prateek" <pmishra@netegrity.com>]

>>
>>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