Re: [Ntp] WGLC: draft-ietf-ntp-packet-timestamps

[Watson Ladd <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Dec 19, 2018, 10:42 AM Daniel Franke <[e-mail] wrote:

> I have no objection to advancing this document. I wish the
> introductory text would be clearer on who the document's intended
> audience is, and the scope within which its recommendations are
> intended to be applicable. If the reader misinterprets this document
> as giving recommendations for the right way to represent time in an
> entirely green-field project that doesn't have to interoperate with
> anything else, then the recommendations are frankly terrible. The only
> good reason for using a UTC timestamp that counts only non-leap
> seconds and is ambiguous while leap seconds are in progress is that so
> many existing systems are built this way (as I've said before, the
> *sensible* way to express UTC in binary protocols is with two fields:
> days since some epoch, and (nano|nibi)seconds since midnight).
> Likewise, in a vacuum, the document's recommendations regarding
> particularly choices of epoch or nibiseconds-vs-nanoseconds would be
> unmotivated; they are the way they are purely because of existing
> systems that already work that way. If the reader goes through the
> document from start to finish, it eventually becomes clear that its
> recommendations are centered around interoperation with existing NTP
> or PTP systems. However, a reader who has only gotten through the
> title, abstract, and introduction is likely to have incorrect
> expectations about what follows.
>

What you want is TAI which is in the spec. Why introduce a new kind of
time? Why count days and seconds and have a strange multiple representation
issue?

UTC is UTC. It is defined by BIPM. Your timescale is not UTC. It is not a
different timestamp format but a different timescale. Intercalcary
nanoseconds need to be added in ways you have not defined. For one thing
what's a day and when is midnight? Siderial, solar, or mean?

If you want every second to be unique use TAI. That's what it is for.


> On Sun, Dec 9, 2018 at 3:38 AM Tal Mizrahi <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > As WGLC has completed, we have uploaded an updated version of the draft:
> > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ntp-packet-timestamps-05
> >
> > We believe this version addresses all the comments we received,
> including the latest comments from Miroslav, Warner, and Denis.
> > Specifically, the authors had some offline correspondence with Miroslav
> and Warner regarding the leap second description and the NTP timestamp
> epoch description. After a few iterations we believe we have reached a
> satisfactory version of the relevant text. The changes compared to draft 04
> can be viewed in the diff version (
> https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-ntp-packet-timestamps-05.txt
> ).
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Tal, Joachim, and Al.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 10:37 PM Karen O'Donoghue <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Folks,
> >>
> >> After receiving a few requests, I am going to extend this WGLC for one
> week. Please submit comments by COB on Friday 7 December. Even if you don’t
> have any comments, please indicate to the mailing list that you have read
> the draft and you believe it is ready for submission to the IESG. This is
> critical to helping the chairs determine working group consensus on this
> document.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Karen
> >>
> >> On Nov 6, 2018, at 2:52 AM, Karen O'Donoghue <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Folks,
> >>
> >> This message initiates a three plus week working group last call for:
> >>
> >> Guidelines for Defining Packet Timestamps
> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-ntp-packet-timestamps
> >>
> >> Please review the referenced document and send any comments to the
> mailing list including your assessment of whether this document is mature
> enough to proceed to the IESG. Please note that these messages of support
> for progression to the mailing list will be used to determine WG consensus
> to proceed.
> >>
> >> Please send all comments in by COB on Friday 30 November. I realize
> this is a bit longer than normal but we are coming out of an IETF week and
> heading into the Thanksgiving holiday in the US.
> >>
> >> Thanks!
> >> Karen and Dieter
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> ntp mailing list
> >> [e-mail]
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ntp
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > ntp mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ntp
>
> _______________________________________________
> ntp mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ntp
>