IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Trans] Clarity regarding timestamp definition

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Fri, 04 May 2018 14:02 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@nohats.ca>
X-Original-To: trans@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: trans@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4172127876 for <trans@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 May 2018 07:02:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
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] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nohats.ca
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UFS_8eQz1wW4 for <trans@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 May 2018 07:02:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.nohats.ca (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:2a03:6000:1004:1::68]) (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 34C06127AD4 for <trans@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 May 2018 07:02:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40cty33DBTzF97; Fri, 4 May 2018 16:02:51 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1525442571; bh=pqoK9EZlGZ1r+ffEigqlFWxgSfVR5SafLPSlUevm3RI=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=BwbIZhZa7tDkalpCp4x1DpE7YdZ41om+LypsobY2S5+Rs7vXJ3WRWxMnYghUwjWWz LWl3fs+akZ4sGdYf88H2AhjptkG+K8lxXe1N9/UF3F1WH4VGKaBsnGMEN3QpcQdcj4 WtJQKJVRb1qKDQWMr/aUZ5Q28aewmdZgUCTxyr/c=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mx.nohats.ca
Received: from mx.nohats.ca ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 94i3uQOPcRTu; Fri, 4 May 2018 16:02:45 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (bofh.nohats.ca [76.10.157.69]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Fri, 4 May 2018 16:02:43 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 4DEFB4AB8EA; Fri, 4 May 2018 10:02:42 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 bofh.nohats.ca 4DEFB4AB8EA
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 479414116372; Fri, 4 May 2018 10:02:42 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Fri, 04 May 2018 10:02:42 -0400
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
To: Fotis Loukos <fotisl@ssl.com>
cc: trans@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <6e72fc42-7085-18d3-94a6-e7f660dd778b@ssl.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.21.1805041000510.13105@bofh.nohats.ca>
References: <6e72fc42-7085-18d3-94a6-e7f660dd778b@ssl.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (LRH 202 2017-01-01)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/trans/mjSyGDgqn0ybwXRnk3aGO7pvxX8>
Subject: Re: [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 14:02:59 -0000

On Fri, 4 May 2018, Fotis Loukos wrote:

> 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
> milliseconds.
>
> 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.

The same text still appears in the bis document:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-trans-rfc6962-bis-28#section-4.7

So if the WG feels this needs clarifying, we should do this soon.

Paul

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email