IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

sburleig.sb@gmail.com Sat, 13 April 2024 01:10 UTC

Return-Path: <sburleig.sb@gmail.com>
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 4B64FC14F721; Fri, 12 Apr 2024 18:10:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, 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
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 191La-R0RJiD; Fri, 12 Apr 2024 18:10:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pl1-x630.google.com (mail-pl1-x630.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::630]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 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 EF06EC14F703; Fri, 12 Apr 2024 18:10:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pl1-x630.google.com with SMTP id d9443c01a7336-1e0b889901bso12758415ad.1; Fri, 12 Apr 2024 18:10:02 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1712970602; x=1713575402; darn=ietf.org; h=content-language:thread-index:content-transfer-encoding :mime-version:message-id:date:subject:in-reply-to:references:cc:to :from:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=upE+dNo4L/7Ypa/Jz0Hsrn1iAjh5b8ZrW2sYVNC+lJ4=; b=OKY9KuNFYAE8rul9d7WY3ZSzvA8W7+fgJGWxGZpW7oO1TCdZvCFOvDju067DRAWOxg eIGkgTSHdub9I6RsMGbsxs6Z/yPT7ngCfh5MF/1T4YxMBxpWF/79cRCWhY7P4vBnJi1D 2qQGMN7x70hriqpt0ZtB/ElrWD3LCbYBcYBtcgSDP6kvgp12QLGrmw8MSdZTFmEJBgSG /krtXuXefVozmu0BFlyWQ7LBGDvXusEPE8dtl9SIku35DlEJTdAFyS+YlGGyblPQVRKK vYsbIFCM1HmbYV8v7UZAznrdyvpMRoLPsio0C+Ms72kg3lcm5pw/BQ1O2nD1pb+GXgMn UkHw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1712970602; x=1713575402; h=content-language:thread-index:content-transfer-encoding :mime-version:message-id:date:subject:in-reply-to:references:cc:to :from:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=upE+dNo4L/7Ypa/Jz0Hsrn1iAjh5b8ZrW2sYVNC+lJ4=; b=nGY6MBx/f6bCI6Od3yrwfpJujpYAmD1t/3btFAEtDrrHSKmmm1O7XZ3KLQkzhOT2wP 4iql5F3dNT4JgyvT5HVepnizsUd0/NjfmDpKYluKQbb002L/8iDZugzFNKz/z7TzE/v2 c5UmS4mfMnCvK39O9V6mHMNeBYnwr31zgDUt5wt/BGUomU37kgk4dKK48918MeR+Lrn7 y1et1cTCdZeWtfWSzyBHzX0V+aUhcJhSGCjKyzo2p9jH5jA0FCP6dzv1q8vnYgfrqGAE U+WZ6CIW2jWhK7q1/Vo3vltFLNVwelGXVuFFbOUBaIy5B28Vy3V2ZDkjML0Yz3ehEzoE eTgg==
X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCX/nnvnOkdwFla/HK5vC1SdJuRyRYuqPJZiUaHCs0bkEUBpvf01i/0aBbRP8GN6++mRY9zEO5G+30uIzo16M6SPjemSMv7P8M8mMEk=
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yzk6Ofsbdj/eXaLPj/GCScVnwdn0mivt2CLiSPHCZRubz5kyZK2 rYuzeSLfgg9sZ7zGdBWrfBuuLA7cVI4u+FeqE7IiBDBob0PehGj+
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IEVbxegQPVdlK6Dn9QdQX+SWo3kznBP2YS73Zfu3betr9a3svgMt4TmVqFgP12uIxyf2lZvkQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:903:1c7:b0:1e5:2a20:2d68 with SMTP id e7-20020a17090301c700b001e52a202d68mr4346078plh.47.1712970601911; Fri, 12 Apr 2024 18:10:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Dorothy ([72.134.194.38]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id l12-20020a170903120c00b001e556d4ed41sm3468316plh.118.2024.04.12.18.10.00 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 12 Apr 2024 18:10:01 -0700 (PDT)
From: sburleig.sb@gmail.com
To: 'Stephen Farrell' <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>, "'Rieber, Richard R (US 347R)'" <richard.r.rieber=40jpl.nasa.gov@dmarc.ietf.org>, 'Jorge Amodio' <jmamodio@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
References: <85584DCA-C858-4298-B0F4-555FC42138F1@gmail.com> <141AE72F-7E78-47E6-9912-65A46AD11EF4@gmail.com> <d19700964a314d6e9cd24c07b2a47c10@jhuapl.edu> <017b01da8cef$ecbdb920$c6392b60$@gmail.com> <CAMzo+1aYC+cg=os8zQi3US1i+YX_WrMy-XcJY-haFp2GbMYavw@mail.gmail.com> <PH8PR09MB89266BA5D11006169DD30B31F1042@PH8PR09MB8926.namprd09.prod.outlook.com> <d320b79e-fef4-4845-8caf-db138c795db6@cs.tcd.ie>
In-Reply-To: <d320b79e-fef4-4845-8caf-db138c795db6@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2024 18:10:00 -0700
Message-ID: <042001da8d3f$4f9bd640$eed382c0$@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQIXl+vJw6hgLLEwoLOuf5AMv1qrpgJ+pvFqAYhRiUQB7Q+t8wGH7pFCAaE1B1cCCHB6orCSH9HQ
Content-Language: en-us
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/jGYhrPl6I7qoYNr4VC_sooN_6sc>
Subject: Re: [Cbor] [dtn] [EXTERNAL] Re: [EXT] Re: LTC timescale (Re: Question regarding RFC 9171 - How to incorporate "Coordinated Lunar Time")
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: Sat, 13 Apr 2024 01:10:05 -0000

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.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email