RE: Discussion of notareqs document

["Carl Wallace" <cwallace@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> Well that is the general problem. Legislation states that 
> post-festum revocation is not allowed, meaning the time of 
> revocation can not be defined before the time when revocation 
> was requested. It may take some time before next CRL is 
> published, so when this information is published is the main 
> issue. If we consider that time stops at the time of 
> processing, some attestation could be produced. The practice? 
> I am not sure....

CRLs do not provide a means of determining "when revocation was requested"
vs. the revocation time included in the CRL.  That must be enforced by the
CRL issuer.
 
> Also, TAS performs its own validation at time T1 and by that 
> states that signature existed at T1. Post-festum validation 
> should only provide information that nothing really happened 
> before T1....

OK, but a TAS may archive an invalid signature (or evidence of invalidity).