That is acceptable.
On 11/7/23 08:26, Carsten Bormann wrote:
On 2023-11-07, at 13:45, Mike Ounsworth
<[email protected]> wrote:
could notAfter be made optional in C509?
If that seems to far a step, let’s just use
false
for
99991231235959Z
Grüße, Carsten
_______________________________________________
COSE mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose
_______________________________________________
COSE mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose
