Bob,
RL 'Bob' Morgan wrote:
>
> On Mon, 28 Jan 2002, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>
> > However, I should point out that I think this isn't the worst thing
> > about the handling of time in the -25 spec: the lack of direction on
> > timezones, fractional seconds and comparisons is IMO *much* worse.
>
> 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
- all times in UTC (i.e. no local times, no daylight savings)
- mandatory one-second resolution (e.g. MUST include '00' seconds if
necessary)
I think that's all you need, *if* the one-second resolution is
ok - does SAML require finer time granularity for any assertions?
Stephen.
--
____________________________________________________________
Stephen Farrell
Baltimore Technologies, tel: (direct line) +353 1 881 6716
39 Parkgate Street, fax: +353 1 881 7000
Dublin 8. mailto:
Ireland http://www.baltimore.com
