Re: [Cbor] [dtn] [EXTERNAL] Re: [EXT] Re: LTC timescale (Re: Question regarding RFC 9171 - How to incorporate "Coordinated Lunar Time")

I'm not quite sure that there is a problem.

Besides a government mandate, AFAIK there is nothing concrete, discussed,
agreed, implemented about LTC, if we reach that phase it will be just a
conversion from/to UTC at the application/service level, nothing to change,
as ScottB said highly not recommended, at the protocol layer/s.

My .02
Jorge

On Fri, Apr 12, 2024 at 8:54 PM <scott@solarnetone.org> wrote:

> It would seem that there are ample other measures that could be
> implemented to resolve the problem described, all well short in complexity
> of standards action.
>
> ScottJ
>
> On Fri, 12 Apr 2024, sburleig.sb@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > I completely agree.  As I suggested earlier, absolute alignment among BP
> nodes' clocks to microsecond accuracy is in no way necessary.  Changing the
> definition of "DTN time" would destabilize the BP specification - requiring
> modification of all BP implementations on all BP nodes in the Solar System,
> further deferring adoption of BP by flight missions, and broadly increasing
> mission cost - to no material benefit.  Let's not do it.
> >
> > Scott
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
> > Sent: Friday, April 12, 2024 12:56 PM
> > To: Rieber, Richard R (US 347R) <richard.r.rieber=
> 40jpl.nasa.gov@dmarc.ietf.org>; Jorge Amodio <jmamodio@gmail.com>;
> sburleig.sb@gmail.com
> > Cc: EXTERNAL-Sipos, Brian J (US 9300-Affiliate) <brian.sipos@jhuapl.edu>;
> John Dowdell <john.dowdell.ietf@gmail.com>; Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>;
> DTN WG <dtn@ietf.org>; cbor@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: [dtn] [EXTERNAL] Re: [EXT] Re: LTC timescale (Re: Question
> regarding RFC 9171 - How to incorporate "Coordinated Lunar Time")
> >
> >
> > Hiya,
> >
> > On 12/04/2024 18:05, Rieber, Richard R (US 347R) wrote:
> >> Does anyone think we should tweak the DTN Time field to utilize the
> >> CBOR Timescale/Timesystem standard Carsten mentioned? I think we
> >> should.
> >
> > I do not think such a change would be a good idea.
> >
> > If you did, then ISTM eventually nearly every BP node would need to be
> able to understand and translate between every possible planetary
> timescale. Sounds like a recipe for bugs and possible vulnerabilities to me.
> >
> > So, better for the lunar devices to translate to/from UTC when making or
> reading bundles I think.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > S.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > dtn mailing list
> > dtn@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dtn
> >
>