[LEAPSECS] timekeeping requirements

[Rob Seaman]

Steve Allen wrote:


> I expect both systems to be forgiving of a little bit of slop in the  

> implementation.


I would say the system design should be responsive to the requirement  
for this degree of freedom.  "Slop in the implementation" is not only  
an unhelpful phrasing, it is inaccurate.  The implementation should be  
verified to accurately reflect a valid design.  The design should  
respond to use cases via requirement discovery.  The appropriate  
stakeholders should reach a consensus at the level of the use cases  
and requirements of the system, not down in the engineering details or  
deployed functionality.

That said, I agree with Steve's position :-)  Our systems are required  
(and have been demonstrated) to be robust in the face of timekeeping  
interruptions of many sorts.  Why are we picking on leap seconds?

Brian Garrett wrote:


> I fail to see how precise atomic timekeeping helps them out that  

> much.  DUT1 can't possibly be a factor for a timekeeping system  

> intentionally designed to avoid the need for advanced observation  

> methods.



The deadline for contributions to SPIE proceedings is before the  
conference.  If we disbelieve the necessity for such a system, we  
could consult the literature rather than speculate.  I'm tired of  
hearing the wide range of systems for which DUT1 can't possibly be a  
factor.  Presumably we'll find out in a few years if we can't be  
bothered to consider the issue in a professional engineering context  
in advance of making new policy.

Rob Seaman
NOAO