[Trans] Clarity regarding timestamp definition

Fotis Loukos <fotisl@ssl.com> Fri, 04 May 2018 13:02 UTC

Return-Path: <fotisl@ssl.com>
X-Original-To: trans@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: trans@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEA16120047 for <trans@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 May 2018 06:02:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mdJnVsoQFSfY for <trans@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 May 2018 06:02:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-out2.electric.net (smtp-out2.electric.net []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 271BF126FB3 for <trans@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 May 2018 06:01:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 1fEaLV-0004kn-VG by out2b.electric.net with emc1-ok (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from <fotisl@ssl.com>) id 1fEaLW-0004ld-TG for trans@ietf.org; Fri, 04 May 2018 06:01:58 -0700
Received: by emcmailer; Fri, 04 May 2018 06:01:58 -0700
Received: from [] (helo=fuseout2d.electric.net) by out2b.electric.net with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from <fotisl@ssl.com>) id 1fEaLV-0004kn-VG for trans@ietf.org; Fri, 04 May 2018 06:01:57 -0700
Received: from mailanyone.net by fuseout2d.electric.net with esmtpa (MailAnyone extSMTP fotisl@ssl.com) id 1fEaLV-00032q-9A for trans@ietf.org; Fri, 04 May 2018 06:01:57 -0700
From: Fotis Loukos <fotisl@ssl.com>
To: trans@ietf.org
Message-ID: <6e72fc42-7085-18d3-94a6-e7f660dd778b@ssl.com>
Date: Fri, 4 May 2018 16:01:55 +0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-FM-Out: [] / / fotisl@ssl.com
X-Env-From: fotisl@ssl.com
X-Proto: esmtps
X-Revdns: fuseout2d.electric.net
X-HELO: fuseout2d.electric.net
X-PolicySMART: 884223
X-Virus-Status: Scanned by VirusSMART (c)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/trans/9IBrUOWwgYNu0PaqyaCLNGQCSKM>
Subject: [Trans] Clarity regarding timestamp definition
X-BeenThere: trans@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Public Notary Transparency working group discussion list <trans.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/trans>, <mailto:trans-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/trans/>
List-Post: <mailto:trans@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:trans-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans>, <mailto:trans-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 May 2018 13:02:02 -0000

Hello everybody,
during my study of rfc6962, I noticed the definition of timestamp at
section 3.2:

"timestamp" is the current NTP Time [RFC5905], measured since the
epoch (January 1, 1970, 00:00), ignoring leap seconds, in

Per RFC5905, there are 3 different NTP times, each one with a different
size (RFC5905 section 6). Of course, somebody who will notice that the
timestamp is an uint64 will assume that the NTP time used is the 64-bit
one, but I believe that the wording "current time in 64-bit timestamp
NTP Time format" is better than simply "current NTP Time".

Furthermore, even if NTP Time is assumed to be in big-endian ordering, I
think that some clarity on this would be helpful for people implementing
CT libraries.

Kind regards,
Fotis Loukos

Fotis Loukos, PhD
Director of Security Architecture
SSL Corp
e: fotisl@ssl.com
w: https://www.ssl.com