Hi Suresh, authors, >> I would suggest to follow the timestamp specification template of Section >> 3 in draft-ietf-ntp-packet-timestamps-05.
>I think the semantics of the DT and OT fields are a bit different from the >NTP packet timestamps and there are also resource constraints in the >6lo world that might make the 64 bit formats expensive. I will let the >authors and the WG comment further on this. I agree that the NTP timestamp format does not fit here. My comment was that DT and OT should be defined according to the timestamp specification template (section 3 in the packet timestamp draft). This is a *generic template* for defining all kinds of timestamp formats. The template was defined in order to make sure that when you define a timestamp format you do not forget important details. Just to clarify, I am not suggesting to change the timestamp formats of DT and OT, but only to specify them in a clear and unambiguous manner. Thanks, Tal. On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 11:00 PM Suresh Krishnan <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Tal, > > On Dec 23, 2018, at 3:49 AM, Tal Mizrahi <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hi, > > I am not a 6lo native, but I reviewed the draft specifically from a > timestamp formatting perspective. > In the NTP working group we currently have a draft in WGLC that presents > guidelines for defining timestamp formats. > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ntp-packet-timestamps-05 > > I believe that the definitions of the timestamps (DT and OT) > in draft-ietf-6lo-deadline-time should be more detailed. For example, > aspects about the epoch and the potential effect of leap seconds are > currently not described in the current draft. > > > Good point. Authors, can you add some further descriptive text around > these fields. > > I would suggest to follow the timestamp specification template of Section > 3 in draft-ietf-ntp-packet-timestamps-05. > > > I think the semantics of the DT and OT fields are a bit different from the > NTP packet timestamps and there are also resource constraints in the 6lo > world that might make the 64 bit formats expensive. I will let the authors > and the WG comment further on this. > > Thanks > Suresh > >
_______________________________________________ 6lo mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo
