Re: [dtn] [Last-Call] [EXTERNAL] Re: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-dtn-bpbis-17

"" <> Mon, 11 November 2019 11:06 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F0A912080A for <>; Mon, 11 Nov 2019 03:06:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3V9WQhz3N3ch for <>; Mon, 11 Nov 2019 03:06:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E578F120289 for <>; Mon, 11 Nov 2019 03:06:51 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=s2048; t=1573470410; bh=Wa0yTUShYzRA7kkCnCU3pTp5chzywvyIztoXHTN6G5Y=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:From:Subject; b=aTFwF5rulhfv0JYxzZfpfVcBy/Y+IQSyhW0XdQS/EVffvqIbB7Tg9EOS7yy680P6XV+dBMF3XfHDYyIZo7hzMEAkdBWvgvSsoPwpi9zPgD1rxaJ2wHO9jokpSF2gnJJr3I37DoUJTyJFnQKPK1n0ew5uj3rnHxqwuZ5b6uzdyuEWJsuv9brDncTG6aC3J/l9SafMkNPZqrWmH0ykcclQy03J7EUdH28KJ75ABFeghMyqCo+7Xlz5w9lgqcJVQRSGA/m4iS4GM0f3oT2hbwQBIFeYI3V6RW8MaZ/k5sOcYD9L+IhWxoW217Tgvwyoai32yGenxZCxcY+etUCOoAiR5Q==
X-YMail-OSG: Cl2LIA0VM1kXU9WZGuE7WisYHSIGaSghq_SndT4Asbg645LPwgqwwbwxlVIndjr J5E3FRNV4tdVxgT6oGtgAakcUWtjCze1a7cJz_svEJsjIzy_Irs7Ulli4NvREUtfn4mMqKO7vaAo DhyFrRIbx.p9iCz5AO9Lao7a9YLYg.gR_iWlc9GHM3OKlSimxjS_EsLJBtUNWUrFvTXgk9Sg5jY0 TX0NZEKgMa_sS.3ES3qg8BWwscElZFmi21cpR8UgfF4h81JeqCaNjrQCKgk_0o_nFjGrIs.EL3J7 h3KXO0xxt2A_AqWs9wnfDDCTJZ3xducT9NCA.omnPgXw70wvxmVeopigqA3JIuqRdq_VxZsts4fJ GNU6BzOv8.2saXxZCaoyGAbFpcERVMqXTDsP3yNk7HxmCC5aaO3Ie9FU9EZ1wUQt4G6qLhUGOFiT EHGe35gVb6Uu4LqfuaE2m.n7QlwnRhP.smWvd4Ke.bSUNchYRS0C133LyC0dPAHG1QIGuJuIIX8M 3uV_cqqHSzppoft69sHhjfoNFmGyf_qtbVszKdC8CsKhoHT9qXbBSTRoHL7UsqBV58fLdROf_FeR 53ByWfO5HmXGfaEQwWLQ1h7XwTmwCkSPnVsf3DOfmtv47YVTDqcFVLmtyEL5px5oGu6CR_M6xO7U 4YhTF8TGibaApw7kK.qR7w5DnQyxmETqt40dATzxeOz8QZsilra3S3_q.JXt8eXVKKY7_8Q_IhbC fuUFYaWl.0zhl5n3EiukqbgwHvXBRwhZ.jdrzazwioh6_ypq8MaGTa2rokeQ6dFrpixlazQpAycf KTnhsjQA6bBZmYFm9626MzQdHEpQoOFYUozGpQYbgNAlw9SxNHfT4TSvXE0z_iwZsIP0ECgtFCin 81HegIKiOJ3lpMMIbiPPgOV54OHkicEvaTElprm2Hbww0owLz3Ujp4QatrFs2dRQTFLwA2Rvmzao yk_zy0uJ7WAKSDaJ0shMi7YQmEC6e_U_oj_nx2fmYPixTyVmLX7TRFGIl_6XjfKfj5xstViTweQw y4E.eyyM_PY5M01e4qJH_q_oNM_n.r4tpprnCqLVI8xPfFt1c9C_4Fhfsw6ogzOVLxMjo9.B.mJL YkMlOY4r7NzUOWPACt0m0Xxc5S6DTlh2nggrwuvena26k4wpizOhTr8P58PsVRovcGBJtk8CCsrH CDrm9r2cb9IA6i4olE91BAaY8RAKUPYbM6tN9fC8KsZvKLjVwG.wWOU9.XVw9N3Uy9jreDGflAmy iGiopWdzZDjBqM_XC52NTn4cRmULQdEPjZA4GyKU_hPjpIN_Vtx3HBNp_1w5O5b8ipJvP2oVV2B2 FkkSIM8MaR6LrBnhIUFP4tM7fHlt_uxMzRgOrjbvvDPB4rocs3.GJLQRWrA_jJ10IjBmECy_lhot AiZxZcN3kOavheQC0WkJ9p5a_2w--
Received: from by with HTTP; Mon, 11 Nov 2019 11:06:50 +0000
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2019 11:05:06 +0000 (UTC)
From: "" <>
To: Carsten Bormann <>, "Burleigh, Scott C (US 312B)" <>
Cc: "" <>, "" <>, "" <>, "" <>
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: WebService/1.1.14680 YMailNorrin Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:70.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/70.0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [dtn] [Last-Call] [EXTERNAL] Re: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-dtn-bpbis-17
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Delay Tolerant Networking \(DTN\) discussion list at the IETF." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2019 11:06:56 -0000

 (That wikipedia page thinks POSIX *is* unix time, and the cited reference
 doesn't seem to support that claim. Anyone want a wikipedia edit war?)

 Scott, when you did the Deep Impact/Epoxi DTN experiments, the
 spacecraft clock was drifting by over a second a day, and clock
 corrections were uploaded before you could do image uploads.
 Yes, notoriously unreliable -- in a harsh environment.

 But this is now going to be addressed with atomic clocks?
 So this is fixing software design problems in hardware?

 I don't have a solution to what I think are difficult problems.
 But I'd rather not see the protocol problems be glossed over.

 Lloyd Wood

On Sunday, 10 November 2019, 08:54:36 GMT+11, Burleigh, Scott C (US 312B) <> wrote: 

Thank you, Carsten.  Some notes in-line below.


-----Original Message-----
From: Carsten Bormann <> 
Sent: Saturday, November 9, 2019 12:31 AM
To: Burleigh, Scott C (US 312B) <>
Subject: Re: [dtn] [EXTERNAL] Re: [Last-Call] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-dtn-bpbis-17

On Nov 8, 2019, at 16:34, Burleigh, Scott C (US 312B) <> wrote:
> I disagree.  From Wikipedia:
> Unix time (also known as Epoch time, POSIX time,[1] seconds since the Epoch,[2] or UNIX Epoch time[3]) is a system for describing a point in time. It is the number of seconds that have elapsed since the Unix epoch, that is the time 00:00:00 UTC on 1 January 1970, minus leap seconds. Leap seconds are ignored,[4] 

There is a problem with this phrase.
You cannot “ignore” leap seconds if you want Posix time.
To the contrary, you need to subtract every single one of them from the number of seconds you count from the Epoch.

    -->  I see your point: Epoch time is simply the number of seconds that have elapsed since the Unix epoch, period.  The "minus" is confusing; "omitting" would have been a little better.

    -->  If you don't have Epoch time, and instead only have UTC, then in order to convert from UTC to the equivalent Epoch time you have to add to your UTC value the applicable number of leap seconds; UTC runs slightly behind Epoch time because it counts more seconds (the leap seconds), which Epoch time does not count.  (At the moment of leap second insertion it takes 2 seconds for UTC to advance from 23:59:59 to 00:00:00 [because the advance from 23:59:59 to 23:59:60 is additionally counted], while over that same 2-second interval the Epoch time will have advanced from 23:59:59 to 00:00:01.)  If you have Epoch time, then in order to convert from Epoch time to the equivalent UTC you have to subtract from your Epoch time value the applicable number of leap seconds, thus retroactively "counting" them.

Leap seconds are actively *not counted*, not “ignored”.
Of course, if you think “ignore” means “not count”, you will think the sentence makes sense.

    -->  Yes.  The sentence could have been written more clearly.

There are time scales that don’t know about leap seconds, such as TAI or GPS (*).
Posix time does know about leap seconds, it needs them to be mostly compatible with civil time (UTC).

(*) The GPS signal indicates the accumulated number of leap seconds since GPS epoch *along with* the monotonic time in GPS time scale (that “ignores” the fact that there are leap seconds).

Sorry for overstressing the semantics here, but from teaching I know that half of the people understand “ignore” as “do not take any notice of”, as TAI does, and only the other half understands that you mean “do not count” as an explicit act of “ignoring”, as in Posix time.

    -->  You're right, an important clarification.

> For example, “The Open Group Base Specifications Issue 7, Rationale: Base Definitions”, section A.4 (General Concepts) says “Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) includes leap seconds. However, in POSIX time (seconds since the Epoch), leap seconds are ignored (not applied) to provide an easy and compatible method of computing time differences.”

“Not applied” has the same problem, maybe slightly less so.

You “apply” leap seconds to Posix time by *not counting* them.

> I am happy to agree that an operating system’s implementation of the time() function may typically obtain accurate UTC time (from GPS or NTP) and subtract the leap seconds out of that value to obtain Epoch time, and in this sense the implementation of the time() function is typically dependent on information about leap seconds.
> But that is an implementation expedient, which BP does not care about.  What BP cares about is expressing time as a number of seconds that have elapsed since the Epoch (minus an offset, the number of seconds elapsed from the Epoch to midnight 1 January 2000 UTC).  The manner in which that value is generated doesn’t matter to the protocol.

That is correct, but it means you can’t have a BP node that doesn’t know about leap seconds (either explicitly or by periodically resetting its clock to the Posix representation of civil time, which in many cases you do anyway because of clock drift).

    -->  Not quite true.  You *can* have a BP node that doesn't know about leap seconds, though I admit that this may not be common.  If the only way to implement the function that returns the current DTN time is to consult UTC time and back the leap seconds out then yes, you need to know about leap seconds.  But if the function that returns the current DTN time does so by consulting an accurate local clock that monotonically increases the count of seconds since the Epoch -- which is, for example, what all deep-space spacecraft clocks effectively do -- then no knowledge of leap seconds is needed.

    -->  Spacecraft clocks have been notoriously unstable in the past, but that is changing.  Radiation-hardened on-board electronics are increasingly reliable.  At the outer edge of what we might contemplate in the near term is the deep-space atomic clock, the first instance of which launched in June (  It may fairly be argued that an atomic clock the size of a toaster oven, massing 16 kg, is far too large and expensive to deploy on a Cubesat.  I think we find, though, that useful devices like these tend to become smaller and less costly as markets for them emerge.

Grüße, Carsten

last-call mailing list