Benjamin Kaduk <[email protected]> writes: >Just to confirm: the scenario you're using to contrast to the one described >by Viktor (and Nico) is a scenarios in which the certificates expire at >"never" (99991231235959Z)?
Not that "never" since it would break a lot of things, but some time far enough in the future that you don't have to worry about it. 14 January 2038 was one I've seen used, but that was at a point when 2038 was still 20+ years away and the equipment might have been expected to be EOL'd by then. Not sure what's being used now that the time to Y2038 is a lot less than the lifetime of the equipment. Peter. _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
