RE: [security-services] Following up on dateTime

[Scott Cantor <cantor.2@osu.edu>]

> I don't understand how we can reliably process assertions 
> that include local times and no timezone. Are you saying that 
> the relying party for the assertion MUST assume that the time 
> value is actually UTC even though the "Z" is omitted? That 
> sounds very dangerous to me. 

As far as I can tell, that's what "canonical representation" means, but
I'm with you, I don't like it, even if it means the schema gets more
complex as a result.

> Maybe I'm confused though?

It's just as likely me, but my action item was to try and read up on it,
and this is what I found to be the case.

-- Scott