Re: RFC3280 and/or 3280bis?

Thomas Roessler wrote:
> Thanks for the heads-up.  Is there a list of changes between 3280
> and 3280bis somewhere?

There's a summary in the introduction of the draft (about p4).

One nice thing we added, that's not listed there (and that
I'd forgotten 'till I went over it today;-) is in 4.1.2.5:

    To indicate that a certificate has no well defined expiration date,
    the notAfter SHOULD be assigned the GeneralizedTime value of
    99991231235959Z.

I'd be up for repeating that in xit somewhere since it'll
probably be missed otherwise.

S.