[security-services] the "NotOnOrAfter" issue

[RL 'Bob' Morgan <rlmorgan@washington.edu>]

On Tue, 22 Jan 2002, Stephen Farrell wrote:

  - NotOnOrAfter. This is different from most end-date types specified
  elsewhere, in particular the notAfter field in many ASN.1 structures.
  There is no justification given for this semantic change which will
  cause new boundary conditions and hence new (probably broken) code. For
  example, if an issuer has an X.509 certificate with a notAfter of
  20021231235959Z then what is the latest NotOnOrAfter value that should
  result in a valid assertion? What is the first NotOnOrAfter value that
  should result in an assertion being invalidated for this reason? I don't
  know the answers. Gratuitous changes are bad things. This is one such.

I agree that in this case consistency with X.509 Validity field:

   Validity ::= SEQUENCE {
        notBefore      Time,
        notAfter       Time }

makes good sense, and support changing the NotOnOrAfter Condition
attribute to "NotAfter".  Is there some good argument as to why it should
be NotOnOrAfter?

 - RL "Bob"