Status of This Memo

This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.¶

This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has received public review and has been approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Not all documents approved by the IESG are candidates for any level of Internet Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 7841.¶

Information about the current status of this document, any errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc0000.¶

Copyright Notice

Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.¶

This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.¶

Table of Contents

3. Packet Timestamp Specification Template

This document recommends to use the timestamp formats defined in Section 4. In cases where these timestamp formats do not satisfy the protocol requirements, the timestamp specification should clearly state the reasons for defining a new format. Moreover, it is recommended to derive the new timestamp format from an existing timestamp format, either a timestamp format from this document, or any other previously defined timestamp format.¶

The timestamp specification must unambiguously define the syntax and the semantics of the timestamp. The current section defines the minimum set of attributes, but it should be noted that in some cases additional attributes or aspects will need to be defined in the timestamp specification.¶

This section defines a template for specifying packet timestamps. A timestamp format specification MUST include at least the following aspects:¶

Timestamp syntax:

Size:

The number of bits (or octets) used to represent the packet timestamp field. If the timestamp is comprised of more than one field, the size of each field is specified. Network order (big endian) is assumed by default; if this is not the case then this section explicitly specifies the endianity.¶

Timestamp semantics:

Units:

The units used to represent the timestamp. If the timestamp is comprised of more than one field, the units of each field are specified. If a field is limited to a specific range of values, this section specifies the permitted range of values.¶

Resolution:

The timestamp resolution; the resolution is equal to the timestamp field unit. If the timestamp consists of two or more fields using different time units, then the resolution is the smallest time unit.¶

Wraparound:

The wraparound period of the timestamp; any further wraparound-related considerations should be described here.¶

Epoch:

The origin of the timescale used for the timestamp; the moment in time used as a reference for the timestamp value. For example, the epoch may be based on a standard time scale, such as UTC. Another example is a relative timestamp, in which the epoch could be the time at which the device using the timestamp was powered up, and is not affected by leap seconds (see the next attribute).¶

Leap seconds:

This subsection specifies whether the timestamp is affected by leap seconds. If the timestamp is affected by leap seconds, then it represents the time elapsed since the epoch minus the number of leap seconds that have occurred since the epoch.¶

Synchronization aspects:

The specification of a network protocol that makes use of a packet timestamp is expected to include the synchronization aspects of using the timestamp. While the synchronization aspects are not strictly part of the timestamp format specification, these aspects provide the necessary context for using the timestamp within the scope of the protocol. In some cases timestamps are used without synchronization, e.g., a timestamp that indicates the number of seconds since power up. In such cases the Synchronization Aspects section will specify that the timestamp does not correspond to a synchronized time reference, and may discuss how this affects the usage of the timestamp. Further details about synchronization aspects are discussed in Section 5.¶

4. Recommended Timestamp Formats

This document defines a set of recommended timestamp formats. Clearly, different network protocols may have different requirements and constraints, and consequently may use different timestamp formats. The choice of the specific timestamp format for a given protocol may depend on a various factors. A few examples of factors that may affect the choice of the timestamp format:¶

• Timestamp size: while some network protocols use a large timestamp field, in some cases there may be constraints with respect to the timestamp size, affecting the choice of the timestamp format.¶
• Resolution: the time resolution is another factor that may directly affect the selected timestamp format. A potentially important factor in this context is extensibility; it may be desirable to allow a timestamp format to be extensible to a higher resolution by extending the field. For example, the resolution of the NTP 32-bit timestamp format can be improved by extending it to the NTP 64-bit timestamp format in a straightforward way.¶
• Wraparound period: the length of the time interval in which the timestamp is unique may also be an important factor in choosing the timestamp format. Along with the timestamp resolution, these two factors determine the required number of bits in the timestamp.¶
• Common format for multiple protocols: if there are two or more network protocols that use timestamps and are often used together in typical systems, using a common timestamp format should be preferred if possible. For example, if the network protocol that is being defined typically runs on a PC, then an NTP-based timestamp format may allow easier integration with an NTP-synchronized timer. In contrast, a protocol that is typically deployed on a hardware-based platform, may make better use of a PTP-based timestamp, allowing more efficient integration with a PTP-synchronized timer.¶

     0                   1                   2                   3
     0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                            Seconds                            |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                            Fraction                           |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

     0                   1                   2                   3
     0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |          Seconds              |           Fraction            |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

     0                   1                   2                   3
     0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                            Seconds                            |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                          Nanoseconds                          |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

5. Synchronization Aspects

A specification that defines a new timestamp format or uses one of the recommended timestamp formats should include a section on Synchronization Aspects. Note that the recommended timestamp formats defined in this document (Section 4) do not include the synchronization aspects of these timestamp formats, but it is expected that specifications of network protocols that make use of these formats should include the synchronization aspects. Examples of a Synchronization Aspects section can be found in Section 6.¶

The Synchronization Aspects section should specify all the assumptions and requirements related to synchronization. For example, the synchronization aspects may specify whether nodes populating the timestamps should be synchronized among themselves, and whether the timestamp is measured with respect to a central reference clock such as an NTP server. If time is assumed to be synchronized to a time standard such as UTC or TAI, it should be specified in this section. Further considerations may be discussed in this section, such as the required timestamp accuracy and precision.¶

Another aspect that should be discussed in this section is leap second [RFC5905] considerations. The timestamp specification template (Section 3) specifies whether the timestamp is affected by leap seconds. It is often the case that further details about leap seconds will need to be defined in the Synchronization Aspects section. Generally speaking, a leap second is a one-second adjustment that is occasionally applied to UTC in order to keep it aligned to the solar time. A leap second may be either positive or negative, i.e., the clock may either be shifted one second forwards or backwards. All leap seconds that have occurred up to the publication of this document have been in the backwards direction, and although forward leap seconds are theoretically possible, the text throughout this document focuses on the common case, which is the backward leap second. In a timekeeping system that considers leap seconds, the system clock may be affected by a leap second in one of three possible ways:¶

• The clock is turned backwards one second at the end of the leap second.¶
• The clock is frozen during the duration of the leap second.¶
• The clock is slowed down during the leap second and adjacent time intervals until the new time value catches up. The interval for this process, commonly referred to as leap smear, can range from several seconds to several hours before, during, and/or after the occurrence of the leap second.¶

The way leap seconds are handled depends on the synchronization protocol, and is thus not specified in this document. However, if a timestamp format is defined with respect to a timescale that is affected by leap seconds, the Synchronization Aspects section should specify how the use of leap seconds affects the timestamp usage.¶

6. Timestamp Use Cases

Packet timestamps are used in various network protocols. Typical applications of packet timestamps include delay measurement, clock synchronization, and others. The following table presents a (non-exhaustive) list of protocols that use packet timestamps, and the timestamp formats used in each of these protocols.¶

The rest of this section presents two hypothetic examples of network protocol specifications that use one of the recommended timestamp formats. The examples include the text that specifies the information related to the timestamp format.¶

7. Packet Timestamp Control Field

In some cases it is desirable to have a control field that describes structure, format, content, and properties of timestamps. Control information about the timestamp format can be conveyed in some protocols using a dedicated control plane protocol, or may be made available at the management plane, for example using a YANG data model. An optional control field allows some of the control information to be attached to the timestamp.¶

An example of a packet timestamp control field is the Error Estimate field, defined by Section 4.1.2 of [RFC4656], which is used in OWAMP [RFC4656] and TWAMP [RFC5357]. The Root Dispersion and Root Delay fields in the NTP header [RFC5905] are two examples of fields that provide information about the timestamp precision. Another example of an auxiliary field is the Correction Field in the PTP header [IEEE1588]; its value is used as a correction to the timestamp, and may be assigned by the sender of the PTP message and updated by transit nodes (Transparent Clocks) in order to account for the delay along the path.¶

This section defines high-level guidelines for defining packet timestamp control fields in network protocols that can benefit from such timestamp-related control information. The word 'requirements' is used in its informal context in this section.¶

8. IANA Considerations

This document includes no request to IANA.¶

9. Security Considerations

A network protocol that uses a packet timestamp MUST specify the security considerations that result from using the timestamp. This section provides an overview of some of the common security considerations of using timestamps.¶

Any metadata that is attached to control or data packets, and specifically packet timestamps, can facilitate network reconnaissance; by passively eavesdropping to timestamped packets an attacker can gather information about the network performance, and about the level of synchronization between nodes.¶

In some cases timestamps could be spoofed or modified by on-path attackers, thus attacking the application that uses the timestamps. For example, if timestamps are used in a delay measurement protocol, an attacker can modify en route timestamps in a way that manipulates the measurement results. Integrity protection mechanisms, such as Message Authentication Codes (MAC), can mitigate such attacks. The specification of an integrity protection mechanism is outside the scope of this document, as typically integrity protection will be defined on a per-network-protocol basis, and not specifically for the timestamp field.¶

Another potential threat that can have a similar impact is delay attacks. An attacker can maliciously delay some or all of the en route messages, with the same harmful implications as described in the previous paragraph. Mitigating delay attacks is a significant challenge; in contrast to spoofing and modification attacks, the delay attack cannot be prevented by cryptographic integrity protection mechanisms. In some cases delay attacks can be mitigated by sending the timestamped information through multiple paths, allowing to detect and to be resilient to an attacker that has access to one of the paths.¶

In many cases timestamping relies on an underlying synchronization mechanism. Thus, any attack that compromises the synchronization mechanism can also compromise protocols that use timestamping. Attacks on time protocols are discussed in detail in [RFC7384].¶

10. Acknowledgments

The authors thank Russ Housley, Yaakov Stein, Greg Mirsky, Warner Losh, Rodney Cummings, Miroslav Lichvar, Denis Reilly, Daniel Franke, Eric Vyncke, Ben Kaduk, Ian Swett, Francesca Palombini, Watson Ladd, and other members of the NTP Working Group for the many helpful comments. The authors gratefully acknowledge Harlan Stenn and the people from the Network Time Foundation for sharing their thoughts and ideas.¶

Authors' Addresses