From: "Roger Fajman" <RAF(_at_)CU(_dot_)NIH(_dot_)GOV>
PKIX says 2050. I say we go with that.
It makes sense to coordinate with PKIX, but why does PKIX say 2050?
2090 would make a lot more sense, as no certificates existed before
1990. Or, perhaps the Year2000 WG will choose a common number for
all Internet protocols. In that case, something like 2060 might
make sense.
Then it's up to the Y2K WG to lobby both PKIX and ISO/ITU to change
their certificate specifications. They both require that dates which
are encoded as UTCTime shall be interpreted with a cutover of 2050.
The current (6/97) draft of X.509 says that if UTCTime is used, then:
"if the 2 digit value is 00 through 49 inclusive, the value shall
have 2000 added to it.
if the 2 digit value is 50 through 99 inclusive, the value shall
have 1900 added to it."
Note that there is another cutover date to be considered - the date
by which implementations should support the use of GeneralizedTime
in certificates. This support issue is left up to individual profiling
groups (such as PKIX); X.509 merely says:
"In no case shall UTCTime be used for representing dates beyond 2049."