4 ms·
In my opinion the RFC should be changed from "notBefore ≤ t ≤ notAfter" to "notBefore ≤ t < notAfter".
by zaxomi 5y ago
In my opinion the RFC should be changed from "notBefore ≤ t ≤ notAfter" to "notBefore ≤ t < notAfter".
- mulmen 5y agoShouldn't that be: "notBefore ≤ t ≤ notAfter" to "notBefore ≤ t < until" ?
- zaxomi 5y agoIt is the name of the fields in RFC 5280: Validity ::= SEQUENCE { notBefore Time, notAfter Time }
- mulmen 5y agoExactly. Making "notBefore" inclusive but "notAfter" exclusive is inconsistent and IMHO confusing. If the end time should be exclusive then it should be called "until" instead of "notAfter".
- account42 5y agoIt's only confusing because you interpret notBefore and notAfter as one-second time intervals when they really should be instants at the start of that second.