[LEAPSECS] Do lawyers care (know) about leap seconds?

Tony Finch dot at dotat.at
Wed Oct 1 06:03:30 EDT 2014

Warner Losh <imp at bsdimp.com> wrote:
> No. The basic point is that people are ignoring the standard because it
> is hard to implement.

Given the perpetual arguments on this list, I am not surprised by the
reaction of the people participating in the UK consultation: techies
should buckle down and implement it properly.

But my experience in the IETF is that it is normal for engineers to work
around or ignore awkward requirements when the cost of complying is too
high. See the thousands of IETF documents that never lead to a deployed

And successful standards usually follow a successful implementation,
rather than the other way round, mainly because there's no substitute for
practical experience when it comes to ironing out the interop and
deployment difficulties.

So I wonder how to effectively communicate the surprisingly large effects
that seemingly small technical details can have on the success or failure
of a standard. Especially to non-technical people who are rightly
impressed by the fondleslab in their pocket and wonder, if phones can be
so smart, why is time so dumb? And to technical people who have less
experience of the mind numbing futility of standards development.

f.anthony.n.finch  <dot at dotat.at>  http://dotat.at/
Trafalgar: Cyclonic in northwest, otherwise mainly northerly or northwesterly
5 or 6. Slight or moderate. Showers in northwest. Good.

More information about the LEAPSECS mailing list