Re: proposal for X.509 validity period -Reply

["Housley, Russ" <housley@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Bob:

>There might be another alternative.
>
>Because I don't like the way that the DER encoding of generalizedTime 
>imposes an unnecessary restriction on the basic definition by not 
>supporting the local time format which is otherwise valid format, making 
>it difficult to determine the validity of the syntax at compile time,
>I would suggest that instead of using generalizedTime we adopt 
>some brand new type, say compromiseTime, WHOSE DER 
>ENCODING WOULD BE IDENTICAL TO UTCTime UNTIL 2087, 
>and identical to generalizedTime after that time.

I do not understand why the use of GMT within all certificates is a 
problem.  It is trivial to adjust GMT to local time for display to users.

Russ