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

Stewart Bryant <> Fri, 08 November 2019 16:16 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A361120875; Fri, 8 Nov 2019 08:16:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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 nnDKoJmvqG1Z; Fri, 8 Nov 2019 08:16:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::431]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6D89B120857; Fri, 8 Nov 2019 08:16:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id r10so7717445wrx.3; Fri, 08 Nov 2019 08:16:34 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=jf7soRlAJNXVtwab0Nt36o5HwA1av8VGmbHBN4cXwsw=; b=istBPZzxJzd3v2xLo3kSM8DnsYNC1h0am9umpXJRyQXqEWqvxdXzUO6+NG/xFnUk6A ETUByldL1GXGu5yoZJQBEx1IvzUgdl+SZI8nxnb7c1/Axphz9bqPuqKzysJV7g70vDNo /izaCNDxaudMeATAttx1GVmwhYmZNz8tQWT8b6IK5eua7Cptbw5jWf5nLEP5ImWg7PON ymmI+IQT5BG9Ypk7uZm8chkUJo4LoWytNsRVV9lD0lHWDHxikI0t69bDiXZmZerkvUp3 RdA1WiIJ3WfpL1//vaxC1wrTGHymt6sLnl+i8WnawcJnQ8faa/KVKShfIdiHSdf1LYIW 338A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=jf7soRlAJNXVtwab0Nt36o5HwA1av8VGmbHBN4cXwsw=; b=PNNSlVZOANs/jxNDwqApWrHSgwCgJyx86po0eZ5BiluC8vXeDmbsISVtf6fjN5lY1a yiHhySqJs5xQD6fze1kif0FFs6YF4SazLEEu8w8p7AcSSOiRFigBbOUkRmdws+/obMNw 9E9wOf642+SM8ObKmTlA8mVb64qEbC2v2fRHIR/snC7aPpM+ZJ3DDD0sfkdTc4v6s1Gy VougDBdSNv0uvtepS3r1IGBtxTfdm79ksGDkr99IdwLsO8e2vAi1cHnKfP++bLwra3ne c3h63Mhj6TsreGcpGYrEueslz4nb5tf8zjEYGsRswptIymNpzpVwvuVMRSm9v7s2wAoZ nEeg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUvX1jKx9Mn/D03sYfxUOr0TgietFn8SNYsvJtys5eEl/zjfkqK /NxDpfxwmoj6hXbP6xdGKGg=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwjEnchM0OjwtsgumC2qMhOjNE+5ue8S/7oVvNZeaMOB/Z0sPcVW7ZPoVnCub9crvzu8nL4Lw==
X-Received: by 2002:a5d:6412:: with SMTP id z18mr9143402wru.30.1573229792875; Fri, 08 Nov 2019 08:16:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ([]) by with ESMTPSA id c24sm12255977wrb.27.2019. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 08 Nov 2019 08:16:32 -0800 (PST)
From: Stewart Bryant <>
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_0D477848-E545-4664-8E01-5D95171F9785"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.0 \(3601.0.10\))
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2019 16:16:01 +0000
In-Reply-To: <>
Cc: "" <>, Magnus Westerlund <>, "" <>, "" <>, "" <>, "" <>
To: "Burleigh, Scott C (US 312B)" <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3601.0.10)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [dtn] [EXTERNAL] [Last-Call] 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 16:16:39 -0000

I think you are right, apologies.

However, this subject is such a minefield that the wise thing to do is to have the section reviewed by someone from the NTP/TICTOC WG.

- Stewart

> On 8 Nov 2019, at 15:34, 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] <> 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