[LEAPSECS] h2g2

M. Warner Losh imp at bsdimp.com
Fri Sep 3 15:19:47 EDT 2010


In message: <7A21EAEC-BB0A-4966-A8DB-86B084DF0963 at batten.eu.org>
Ian Batten <igb at batten.eu.org> writes:

: > do we

: > have enough of a community of |DUT1| < 1s to justify the costs to the

: > rest of the world, or is it time that this crowd shoulder the costs of

: > the raw data they need?

:

: Of course, one issue is that it's not a matter of |DUT1|<1s, but

: having DUT1 at all. The formats by which DUT1 is propagated in time

: signals deeply assume <1, so if it became >1 it couldn't be propagated

: in those signals. Which means that any and all equipment that

: consumes it is instantly broken, as it can't recover UT1. Even if the

: format could accommodate >1, of course, one assumes that almost all

: sane implementations would sanity check the value of DUT1 to confirm

: it's <1, so would reject the larger value anyway.

:

: You could modify the format, but you'd have to do so in a way which

: didn't then break all the equipment that wants UTC but pokes around in

: the extra data to recover the date, or the summer time indicator, or

: whatever. And it would involve replacing all the UT1 equipment

: anyway.

:

: I don't know, and I suspect the ITU don't either, how much (if,

: indeed, there is any) equipment is currently consuming the DUT1

: portion of the national time standards, and why.


I think that this is why the leap second proposals say they won't
disseminate DUT1 anymore. All they really mean by that, I think, is
that we'll measure it, we'll pubish it, but the time broadcasts will
reset it to '0' and users should note that it isn't available that way
anymore.

I lump all the gear that (a) needs to know about it and (b) does
something with it in the same boat. There is a danger here, however
if the (b) is display it to the user who then doesn't know that
something is amiss and believes '0'.

Warner


More information about the LEAPSECS mailing list