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

Joe Touch <> Fri, 08 November 2019 15:40 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27DAD120885; Fri, 8 Nov 2019 07:40:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.219
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.219 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dbLCHvC4mr0J; Fri, 8 Nov 2019 07:40:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DB51E120842; Fri, 8 Nov 2019 07:40:47 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=default; h=To:References:Message-Id:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To: From:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=WtpYqR4uQoxFho0Qp9Bzp4PlhLtUh9zJrRR6J3bAXgc=; b=sej04a4VMFbz++/niH3IoVIXn McVXP9/S+IkHBf6qLrNyRU87MoAnyymhUjt5/qnJYtz3Vo+4LDRJwj1hFeZixfCpeu1g7ohrxf6Ui KXp5SZ5JbpV6d7L0JI+qw+hkcKq2pS3vtxsxt7K0OEFFksx4uk7m65rBSjwvAJQCfzjcsCnkYtiYJ sSywJtkIUN3fePyY4l744QB28vA07tpthRIiP4813Lw1FezxzAk4X4Z+K2lJJ8ENsddWkzZJp2ZA8 qKNpDt25PNmRmpr5qUDqshwXaD6BIuJaWJoFpuFa97NXPAnqbt4QgBueeRzOkRVSdYkTwAzxnwZnW y/QDWjCFw==;
Received: from ([]:50521 helo=[]) by with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <>) id 1iT6NO-0000P7-7C; Fri, 08 Nov 2019 10:40:47 -0500
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_D79E48E7-AA4C-4B50-A134-2F67661E91A6"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
From: Joe Touch <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2019 07:40:41 -0800
Cc: Stewart Bryant <>, "" <>, Magnus Westerlund <>, "" <>, "" <>, "" <>, "" <>
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
To: "Burleigh, Scott C (US 312B)" <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.5
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname -
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain -
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain -
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: authenticated_id:
X-From-Rewrite: unmodified, already matched
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: Fri, 08 Nov 2019 15:40:55 -0000

Unix time != the Posix time API. One is a time scale; the other is the interface to obtain potentially many different time scales.

I dove into these issues here: draft-touch-time


> On Nov 8, 2019, at 7:34 AM, 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] <> with a leap second having the same Unix time as the second before it, and every day is treated as if it contains exactly 86400 seconds.[2] <> Due to this treatment Unix time is not a true representation of UTC.
> Now, of course, this is Wikipedia, which everyone knows to be useless and unreliable.  But the summary is at least concise and clear, and in this particular case it is supported by several source documents, noted at the bottom of the article.
> 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.”
> Going back a bit, page 166 of <> Dennis and Ritchie (who ought to know) say “Time returns the time since 00:00:00 GMT, Jan. 1, 1970, measured in seconds.”
> 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.
> Scott
> From: Stewart Bryant < <>> 
> Sent: Friday, November 8, 2019 6:33 AM
> To: <>
> Cc: Magnus Westerlund < <>>; <>; <>; <>; <>
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Last-Call] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-dtn-bpbis-17
> On 8 Nov 2019, at 13:03, <> wrote:
> <>
> The critical text in that paper is:
> "The Bundle Protocol uses Coordinated Universal Time (UTC), where leap seconds are added at irregular, unpredictable, intervals to reflect slowing of the Earth’s rotation. For nodes ‘in the field’ for a long time (decades), some way of communicating newly-decided UTC leap seconds will be required to prevent clock drift over long time scales that would eventually lead to bundles expiring before delivery. This is most likely to be a significant issue for real-time traffic with very short bundle lifetimes."
> That says that leap-seconds need to be transmitted to the remote site, but the ID does not say anything about that, indeed it silently implies that this is handled.
> The draft text says
> Like TAI, Unix epoch time
>    is simply a count of seconds elapsed since a standard epoch.  Unlike
>    TAI, the current value of Unix epoch time is provided by virtually
>    all operating systems on which BP is likely to run.
> Which is not quite right. The TAI is a continuous count of the number of seconds since the epoch. The UNIX tine is the continuous count + leap seconds since the epoch. Unix knows how many leap seconds have happened by a background process and adds them in, but for that to work it has to have a method of knowing the current leap second state. BTW leap seconds can be removed as well as added.
> - Stewart
> -- 
> last-call mailing list
> <>
> <>