[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

RE: [Syntaxes] Century overflow in Generalized Time

To: steven.legg@adacel.com.au
Subject: RE: [Syntaxes] Century overflow in Generalized Time
From: Hallvard B Furuseth <h.b.furuseth@usit.uio.no>
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 15:36:32 +0200
Cc: ietf-ldapbis@OpenLDAP.org
In-reply-to: <004801c33555$942aa1a0$a518200a@osmium.mtwav.adacel.com.au>
References: <HBF.20030617h7ix@bombur.uio.no> <004801c33555$942aa1a0$a518200a@osmium.mtwav.adacel.com.au>

Steven Legg writes:
>> - does generalizedTimeMatch say 9999123120-08 = 0000010104Z?
> 
> The first string represents the UTC date & time 04:00 on the 1st of
> January 10000.

Damn.  Then we can't compare two dates by 'normalizing' them to
'Z' format and comparing the result:-(

-- 
Hallvard

References:
- [Syntaxes] Century overflow in Generalized Time
  - From: Hallvard B Furuseth <h.b.furuseth@usit.uio.no>
- RE: [Syntaxes] Century overflow in Generalized Time
  - From: "Steven Legg" <steven.legg@adacel.com.au>

Prev by Date: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-14.txt
Next by Date: RE: [Syntaxes] Century overflow in Generalized Time
Index(es):
- Chronological
- Thread