Re: Odd/bad sentence in 5.4.1

On 2008-04-04 15:29:00 +0100, Stephen Farrell wrote:

> - If an RP is doing relaxed path validation, then it can ignore
> the current time when considering notBefore and notAfter fields.
>
> I'd be open to allowing non-overlapping validity periods in cert
> paths when doing relaxed path validation, but there's probably no
> point if the underlying crypto APIs already insist on some overlap.
> (Which I think is the case, can't recall really.)

The additional question here is whether relaxed path validation
should be permissible for any validated certificate, or maybe
prohibited for augmented assurance?

-- 
Thomas Roessler, W3C  <tlr@w3.org>

Received on Friday, 4 April 2008 14:36:16 UTC