[LEAPSECS] the big artillery

Brooks Harris brooks at edlmax.com
Mon Nov 3 14:53:27 EST 2014

On 2014-11-03 02:19 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
> On Nov 3, 2014, at 11:11 AM, Brooks Harris <brooks at edlmax.com> wrote:
>> CAUTION about the PTP Epoch. Its not "just nitpicking".
> ...
>> We've been advised by PTP experts that A) yes, its confusing, and B) most implementations use a integral-second interpretation, as in Table B.1. I understand the "escape clause" they use to justify this is the "(POSIX) algorithms" phrase in Note 1 of 7.2.2 Epoch. By "(POSIX) algorithms" they mean "gmtime()" and (strict) POSIX "ticks" at 1Hz, so, integral seconds. In any event its really the only interpretation that yields a manageable, practical, implementation that is consistent with TAI and UTC, NTP, and common-use of POSIX.
> A few years ago, I had to produce TAI-like data from a measurement system. We defined the value as "seconds since 1970" but the technical definition was "number of SI seconds since 1 Jan 1972 00:00:00 UTC + 10 + #seconds-in-1970&71" to avoid the ambiguity. Given that our chief time scientist suggested this, and they were quite involved in PTP...

I assume you mean "number of SI seconds since 1 Jan 1972 00:00:00 UTC + 
10 - #seconds-in-1970&71" ? And the "#seconds-in-1970&71" is (2 * 365 * 
86400), right? That would be coincident with the PTP Epoch as 
interpreted above, that is, "seconds since 1970 (TAI)".


> Warner
> _______________________________________________
> LEAPSECS mailing list
> LEAPSECS at leapsecond.com
> https://pairlist6.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://pairlist6.pair.net/pipermail/leapsecs/attachments/20141103/e2524910/attachment.html>

More information about the LEAPSECS mailing list