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

Re: My two pennies

To: Marc Branchaud <marcnarc@zoo.net>
Subject: Re: My two pennies
From: Carl Ellison <cme@cybercash.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 1997 10:45:38 -0500
Cc: spki@c2.net
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.3.93.970331093418.20452A-100000@aardvark.zoo.net>
References: <3.0.1.32.19970331053137.04e660d8@cybercash.com>
Sender: owner-spki@c2.net

At 10:01 AM 3/31/97 -0500, Marc Branchaud wrote:
>My main problem with your original definition is that it makes valid a
>blank <valid> field.  Unless a blank <valid> is defined in the draft
>("never expires"?) then the field should really be defined as "at least
>one of" the three.

Yes, I assumed that if there is no validity field, then the cert lives
forever (although the issuing key doesn't, so that gives it its
validity field).

I should say that in the document.  Thanks.

 - Carl


+------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Carl M. Ellison  cme@cybercash.com   http://www.clark.net/pub/cme |
|CyberCash, Inc.                      http://www.cybercash.com/    |
|207 Grindall Street   PGP 2.6.2: 61E2DE7FCB9D7984E9C8048BA63221A2 |
|Baltimore MD 21230-4103  T:(410) 727-4288  F:(410)727-4293        |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+

References:

Re: My two pennies

From: Carl Ellison <cme@cybercash.com>

Re: My two pennies

From: Marc Branchaud <marcnarc@zoo.net>

Prev by Date: Re: Comments on SPKI draft of 25 March 1997
Next by Date: Delegation (was: Re: Comments on SPKI draft of 25 March 1997)
Prev by thread: Re: My two pennies
Next by thread: Re: My two pennies
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread