Hello Dale,
I made some brief follow-up to your comments inline below. I think we
are in agreement about what needs to be done.
On 2/14/2019 6:37 PM, Dale R. Worley wrote:
Charlie Perkins <[email protected]> writes:
I'm not sure about this because even in 6TiSCH networks, one could
imagine using NTP-based time representations. Besides that, we'd really
like to avoid restricting the use of the Deadline-6LoRHE to only 6TiSCH.
I agree that one could imagine any number of schemes, and in the long
run, broad use of Deadline-6LoRHE is desirable. But that doesn't change
the fact that while the draft purports to define the meaning of three
values of the TU field, for two of those values, the draft doesn't
specify what zero-point is being used for the time scale, and so
implementations using those values cannot ensure interoperation.
Now if what you really mean is "NTP time scale in microseconds" and "NTP
time scale in seconds", those *are* definitions. But that's not what the
draft says.
We have revamped the way of representing the deadline time and optional
origination time, and I think it will resolve your comments here. In a
nutshell, we are following the recommendations in
draft-ietf-ntp-packet-timestamps.
...
We will rework the time representation and show a proposed new format
soon. I agree that, if both values are present, one should be a delta
from the other.
The way you write that suggests that either or both of the times can be
present. But the deadline time is not optional. So if the origination
time is present, both times are present.
Agreed, and the new revision will make this clear as well.
Regards,
Charlie P.
_______________________________________________
6lo mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo
