[LEAPSECS] Schedule for success

James Cloos cloos+leapsecs at jhcloos.com
Mon Dec 22 06:27:31 EST 2008

>>>>> "Warner" == M Warner Losh <imp at bsdimp.com> writes:

Jim> Of those who do, how many do not use networking to keep their clock?

Warner> All of them.

Warner> Control applications for timing systems for LORAN-C slaved to
Warner> GPS *DO* care about time of day (but not local time of day),

Slaved to gps == use networking to keep their clocks.

Warner> Leap seconds announcements aren't given to systems that are
Warner> powered down.

OK. That is indeed a good point.

Obviously GPS needs to provide quicker almanac sync.

But I have to ask: why should navigation systems care about time of
day? Shouldn't seconds since an epoch be enough?

It seems like the only issue is human monitoring of the systems' idea
of now.

Warner> ... we aren't talking about those systems that don't care. We
Warner> are talking about the ones that do, ...

My point is that the majority of systems which care about timing and
which can not get almanac data to correlate an interval since an epoch
with human time-of-day do not, in general, really need the latter.

James Cloos <cloos at jhcloos.com> OpenPGP: 1024D/ED7DAEA6

More information about the LEAPSECS mailing list