Re: [AVTCORE] Leap seconds

Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org> Tue, 20 September 2011 22:18 UTC

Return-Path: <csp@csperkins.org>
X-Original-To: avt@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: avt@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37D3F21F8CDC for <avt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Sep 2011 15:18:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.549
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.549 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.049, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id f0Lls1MoHdn5 for <avt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Sep 2011 15:18:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from anchor-msapost-2.mail.demon.net (anchor-msapost-2.mail.demon.net [195.173.77.165]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D7D021F8CDA for <avt@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Sep 2011 15:18:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from starkperkins.demon.co.uk ([80.176.158.71] helo=[192.168.0.30]) by anchor-post-2.mail.demon.net with esmtpsa (AUTH csperkins-dwh) (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69) id 1R68ga-0005jI-lp; Tue, 20 Sep 2011 22:21:05 +0000
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail-146--1052352689"
From: Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org>
In-Reply-To: <CALw1_Q0urojdegAdsJ7L7bT=0680RN-0pk1g7J4zhP-aK3M5ew@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 23:21:03 +0100
Message-Id: <6A72C4E9-B429-4B97-B4AA-98E420DF4C94@csperkins.org>
References: <CALw1_Q0qK1WDc_KjEneOWrqr+jfVsqdwFYpF=ht-tS4SSNp8nQ@mail.gmail.com> <71C9EC0544D1F64D8B7D91EDCC6220200A2D0340@NABSREX027324.NAB.ORG> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1109141110001.25117@hsa.packetdesign.com> <CALw1_Q2L5z1bdVaENm7ky-epWjmxD326FLQ7THrObO_KMfdXfw@mail.gmail.com> <78481CCB-7A70-4BC4-91DC-A707301F22A5@apple.com> <CALw1_Q2VFe3d52ufVp2wSeNCHiwqgnhLh39dQTWYa52jWLaV+g@mail.gmail.com> <8EF3B729-407D-4A6F-9B5C-9E6833F2478B@apple.com> <CALw1_Q05fXDmTFapSaH1NRCsp2eWdemNus40gXsFwsx4HbR34Q@mail.gmail.com> <0F41102E-7F7A-4D69-B22D-6BFC3215D6C0@apple.com> <CALw1_Q0UD563WAES2bauEFa2+zr+qtwCs_=sX8hRED1VgPQTfw@mail.gmail.com> <CAJNg7VJqxQ9QFV7dgBbH8PVQVt88kAsX-xgr9XAf4ZO4-_x2kw@mail.gmail.com> <CALw1_Q2jGj_pHowfzgxMSBKXdEU99k=ST217PCBYtznRjBsvfA@mail.gmail.com> <4E78487D.1030602@ericsson.com> <CALw1_Q0urojdegAdsJ7L7bT=0680RN-0pk1g7J4zhP-aK3M5ew@mail.gmail.com>
To: Kevin Gross <kevin.gross@avanw.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Cc: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>, "avt@ietf.org" <avt@ietf.org>, Marshall Eubanks <marshall.eubanks@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [AVTCORE] Leap seconds
X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance <avt.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/avt>, <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/avt>
List-Post: <mailto:avt@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt>, <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 22:18:40 -0000

I guess I'm confused. RTP was intended to use NTP *format* timestamps, but intentionally said nothing about synchronisation to any particular time source. I don't think it's valid to assume that the NTP format timestamps conveyed in RTP are synchronised to UTC, TAI, or anything else, *unless you have some explicit signalling to state that*.

Colin



On 20 Sep 2011, at 15:45, Kevin Gross wrote:
> Magnus,
> 
> Thanks for thinking this through. The situation is worse if one of the system clocks has a bad leap-second implementation. In that case, it could be until the next NTP clock update before things get back to normal. On the other hand I think if senders and receivers are all aware where the leap second lives, and we make appropriate recommendations, a system can glide through it without disruption. On the third hand, I'm not convinced leap-second awareness for media applications is a reasonable requirement.
> 
> Things certainly are easier on a TAI timebase. I started picking into this because I want to use IEEE 1588 time instead of NTP for some work I'm doing. I figured it would be best for interoperability if I recommended translating the 1588 timebase to the NTP epoch. When I realized that NTP timestamps were UTC, it scuttled that idea but also opened this can of worms.
> 
> Kevin Gross
> 
> 
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 2:02 AM, Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com> wrote:
> On 2011-09-19 22:07, Kevin Gross wrote:
> > Yes, well, there it is in all the gory detail.
> >
> > The point I'm try to get to is that any behavior that doesn't move the
> > timestamp forward at a constant rate will be a problem for RTP. You
> > appear to be reading it as I have. NTP time is UTC time and so there's
> > non-uniform behavior around leap seconds.
> 
> Assuming that the NTP clock freezes or semi freezes during the leap
> seconds I see two effect happening.
> 
> One issue is that an system reading it's clock during the leap second
> itself will get different values depending on if the system uses true
> NTP time or POSIX time. Thus potentially creating up to a second of
> mismatch due to this.
> 
> The second issue appears to be that if the two systems are not precisely
> aligned the leap second will appear to occur at different time from a
> outside observer. That will result that the system that first implements
> the leap second will appear to be out of sync with 1 second until the
> second system also performs the leap second. Thus you suddenly see a 1
> second sync correction that the receiver system might start correct for,
> then that difference disappears when the other system also have had its
> leap second event. Thus resulting in adjusting back again.
> 
> The above can cause different media streams to be out of sync at the
> receiver for the time when only one of the media stream's SR has been
> delivered.
> 
> I would note that leap seconds are rare. They have occurred 24 times
> since 1970. And there has been only 2 during the 2000 decade.
> 
> From my perspective, unless you have a really high performance
> application, the leap second event will at most cause some sync
> adjustments with potentially media out of sync that will be corrected as
> soon as both sender and receiver has passed the leap second event and
> SRs has been delivered in both cases.
> 
> I think the reasonable thing to do is simply to ignore SRs that indicate
> an approximately 1 second adjustment on a media stream when in close
> proximity to a leap second event. This would works fine as long as the
> two involved nodes would not be more out of sync than the guard period
> where this algorithm is active.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Magnus Westerlund
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ericsson AB                | Phone  +46 10 7148287
> Färögatan 6                | Mobile +46 73 0949079
> SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Kevin Gross
> +1-303-447-0517
> Media Network Consultant
> AVA Networks - www.AVAnw.com, www.X192.org


-- 
Colin Perkins
http://csperkins.org/