[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: non-contiguous validity times

To: Carl Ellison <cme@cybercash.com>
Subject: Re: non-contiguous validity times
From: "Angelos D. Keromytis" <angelos@dsl.cis.upenn.edu>
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 16:59:20 +0100
Cc: spki@c2.net
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 21 Apr 1997 01:29:39 EDT." <3.0.1.32.19970421012939.00f9ef80@cybercash.com>
Return-Receipt-To: angelos@dsl.cis.upenn.edu

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----


In message <3.0.1.32.19970421012939.00f9ef80@cybercash.com>, Carl Ellison write
s:
>Topic from Memphis:
>
>	Should we provide for non-contiguous validity times?  ...e.g., a cert b
>eing 
>valid only from 9-5 on weekdays?
>

There are two validity times in a certificate like this:
a) the time the certificate itself expires
b) the times the authority carried is actually granted

I would think that (a) is covered by the simple validity fields
carried in the certificate, whereas (b) is part of the authorization
(the tag).
- -Angelos

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3i
Charset: noconv
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface

iQCVAwUBM1vVKL0pBjh2h1kFAQHsJwP9GMfUDXeFM3/8CrvtyejxqWcpXtrBbuSA
ZUc1yb0YjMY8DoAFV8P3/pbyNCjL/jdQODswAxZtEws1H6SYIbzsfI0JVOCnmKAC
q64yBR0556PQ7nI2jugO0crawHJFOVWNHpPlGbw7b8yxrrtnMF0BEy3OU2OgVbg4
ZWTKzXhgF0k=
=dP7p
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

References:

non-contiguous validity times

From: Carl Ellison <cme@cybercash.com>

Prev by Date: Re: Linkology -- short version
Next by Date: Re: propagation control
Prev by thread: non-contiguous validity times
Next by thread: Linkology -- short version
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread