IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Cbor] I-D Action: draft-ietf-cbor-time-tag-04.txt

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Tue, 17 January 2023 00:09 UTC

Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
X-Original-To: cbor@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: cbor@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98761C14CE47 for <cbor@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Jan 2023 16:09:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 91J7dUWKx5Bm for <cbor@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Jan 2023 16:09:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de (smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.50.15]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 43CD4C14CE27 for <cbor@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Jan 2023 16:08:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (p548dc9a4.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.141.201.164]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4Nwq400YbHzDCby; Tue, 17 Jan 2023 01:08:31 +0100 (CET)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3696.120.41.1.1\))
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <SJ0PR03MB65982A073E1585992BBD5B1FCAC19@SJ0PR03MB6598.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2023 01:08:30 +0100
Cc: Vadim Goncharov <vadimnuclight@gmail.com>, Laurence Lundblade <lgl@island-resort.com>, "cbor@ietf.org" <cbor@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <C9412595-D488-4D99-9FBE-A2B1C223FB2F@tzi.org>
References: <167345627851.15097.9738487459393843034@ietfa.amsl.com> <84F2A444-34F1-4DBA-A377-127EE2E6A65D@island-resort.com> <6FD41613-54BB-472E-ADCC-3D85C6679B49@tzi.org> <20230117010331.5f70ecdc@nuclight> <SJ0PR03MB65982A073E1585992BBD5B1FCAC19@SJ0PR03MB6598.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
To: Doug Ewell <doug@ewellic.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3696.120.41.1.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/5CfpheVijx0npb2amowhnRUjYKo>
Subject: Re: [Cbor] I-D Action: draft-ietf-cbor-time-tag-04.txt
X-BeenThere: cbor@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Concise Binary Object Representation \(CBOR\)" <cbor.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/cbor>, <mailto:cbor-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/cbor/>
List-Post: <mailto:cbor@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cbor-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cbor>, <mailto:cbor-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2023 00:09:07 -0000

On 17. Jan 2023, at 00:02, Doug Ewell <doug@ewellic.org> wrote:
> 
> “mibi-” is ambiguous between “milli binary” (2⁻¹⁰) and “micro binary” (2⁻²⁰), which is possibly one reason it hasn’t achieved any currency.

Ah, that just shows lack of will-power.
Micro-binary of course is mubi :-)

SCNR…

(While 1.048576 MHz oscillators do exist, I’ve seen that much less as a basis for timing than 1.024 kHz.
Might be the ubiquity of 32.768 kHz crystals…)

Grüße, Carsten

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status