On 04/02/17 22:16, Kirk Hall via Public wrote:
> Peter - don't you think "13 months" already encompasses all cases
> like what you show below (start date and end date 13 months apart
> based on the dates themselves, even if that means the number of days
> varies a little), and will encompass all
Gerv - can't machines be programmed to notice that April 18, 2017 is 13 months
after March 18, 2016? It seems easy to do that, and much easier for humans to
evaluate than 398 days.
-Original Message-
From: Public [mailto:public-boun...@cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Gervase Markham
via
On 05/02/17 20:32, Kirk Hall wrote:
> Gerv - can't machines be programmed to notice that April 18, 2017 is
> 13 months after March 18, 2016?
Yes, they can, most easily by subtracting one date from the other,
getting a number of days, and comparing that to a number of days
representing "13
Kirk,
> can't machines be programmed to notice that April 18, 2017 is 13 months after
> March 18, 2016?
Of course. Computers can be programmed to solve very hard problems and are do
so every day. That being said, this is actually much harder than it might seem
at first glance because the
Fair enough - but let's come up with enforceable rules such as "when counting,
include the first day but not the last day" (that's actually a court rule for
determining how many days a party has to file or do something) or "the last
second in the period should be the same as the first second in
On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 1:34 PM, Kirk Hall via Public
wrote:
> Many of us have complex validation and issuance programming already based
> on months and anniversaries, and there doesn't seem to be a good reason to
> reprogram all this to a set number of days
Peter's
On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 6:44 PM, Kirk Hall
wrote:
>
> I don’t understand what problem this proposal is intended to address. If
> a CA sticks with “13 months” it should always end up with fewer than 398
> days.
>
Yes, that's exactly why the proposal exists.
> If
Just to try to +1 Jacob's point by summing it up -- by requiring a maximum
of 398 days, CAs can continue to safely issue any "human-friendly" form of
13 month renewals, in ways that don't cause calendar drift.
Any such human-intuitive strategy will be guaranteed to stay under 398
days, and then
Thanks, understood. In the end, I don’t object if there’s a useful reason to
make the change.
Would it make sense to state any rule change in a format such as this?
“*** [do something] at least every 13 months or up to 398 days maximum,
whichever time period the CA chooses.”
That way, the
Re-porting for Jürgen
Dimitris.
Forwarded Message
Subject: Re: [cabfquest] Draft Ballot 186 - Limiting the Reuse of
Validation Information
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2017 17:35:12 +0100
From: Jürgen Brauckmann
Reply-To: questi...@cabforum.org
Re-porting for Jürgen
Dimitris.
Forwarded Message
Subject: automation Re: [cabfpub] Draft Ballot 186 - Limiting the Reuse
of Validation Information
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2017 17:59:58 +0100
From: Jürgen Brauckmann
Organization: DFN-CERT Services
11 matches
Mail list logo