[cabfpub] Deprecating support for long-lived certificates

Ryan Sleevi sleevi at google.com
Thu Aug 29 19:58:28 UTC 2013

Isn't "day" imprecise? Why not use the equivalent in hours? How will we
deal with leap seconds? Perhaps measure in seconds? That is, all measures
of time are, to some degree, imprecise.

I agree that "month" can indeed be ambiguous if used without a point of
reference. However, and particularly in the case of validity, the point of
reference is the issuance period, as measured by the notBefore to the
notAfter. In that case, and using UTC (as the certificate profile
requires), it should be unambiguous, should it not?

On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 12:40 PM, Rick Andrews <Rick_Andrews at symantec.com>wrote:

> Thanks, Ryan. I think I’ve identified another ambiguity in the BRs: the
> use of the word “month”. There are many places in the document where the
> word is used, but it’s imprecise (28, 29, 30 or 31 days). Even “year” is
> somewhat imprecise. Perhaps we should replace all uses with the equivalent
> in days?****
> ** **
> -Rick****
> ** **
> ** **
> If CAs find there are questions about the BRs, or ambiguities in language
> that may create confusion, we certainly welcome discussions in the CA/B
> Forum. Hopefully we can continue to work together and clarify the language
> in the BRs, removing any ambiguities that may exist.****
> ** **
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20130829/d74c3681/attachment-0003.html>

More information about the Public mailing list