Hi All, I am not a 100% sure what is exactly required here. So FWIW,
1) If it is a question about the encoding and wire format of the NTP timestamp (NTP synchronize to the UTC timescale), then I would suggest looking at the working draft https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ntp-packet-timestamps-02#page-6 2) If it is about the type of time and date format to be used, the closest reference would be RFC 3339. https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3339 3) If the idea is just to refrain from mentioning "NTP" at all, then I would agree with what Jon said to go with "64-bit, unsigned Unix time” should be good enough. Best, Aanchal. On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 1:08 PM, Jon Callas < [email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Aug 15, 2018, at 4:31 AM, Rob Stradling <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I just started to prepare a PR for this, but... > > > > RFC6962 says: > > "timestamp" is the current NTP Time [RFC5905], measured since the > > epoch (January 1, 1970, 00:00), ignoring leap seconds, in > > milliseconds. > > > > 6962-bis currently says: > > "timestamp" is the current NTP Time [RFC5905], measured in > > milliseconds since the epoch (January 1, 1970, 00:00 UTC), ignoring > > leap seconds. > > > > RFC5905 section 6 says: > > "In the date and timestamp formats, the prime epoch, or base date of > > era 0, is 0 h 1 January 1900 UTC, when all bits are zero." > > > > 1970 != 1900, and (IINM) NTP time does not ignore leap seconds. > > > > ISTM that what we're actually using is Unix time ( > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_time), and so we should say that we're > using Unix time. It makes no sense to claim to be using NTP time if we're > not actually doing that. > > > > Two possible ways forward: > > > > 1. Replace the "NTP time" references with "Unix time", and find a > suitable reference (any ideas?) to point to. > > > > 2. Switch to actually using the 64-bit NTP timestamp format. This might > confuse implementers that are already familiar with RFC6962 though. > > > > Any preferences? (I favour option 1). > > Thank you for this. I think it’s important to define it to Unix time or > equivalent rather than NTP. At best, NTP is going to refer it to Unix time > or equivalent, and you’d have the problem of people debating what to do if > they use some other protocol than NTP. > > I think that if you say, “64-bit, unsigned Unix time” it’s pretty > well-defined. You could even explain once that it’s the number of seconds > since 1 January 1970 UTC and then it’s defined about as completely as > possible. > > Jon > > _______________________________________________ > Trans mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans >
_______________________________________________ Trans mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
