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

Brooks Harris brooks at edlmax.com
Wed Oct 1 17:10:35 EDT 2014

On 2014-10-01 12:18 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
> On Oct 1, 2014, at 10:15 AM, Tony Finch <dot at dotat.at> wrote:
>> Steffen Nurpmeso <sdaoden at yandex.com> wrote:
>>> I cannot imagine you wouldn't agree that having CLOCK_TAI (and
>>> CLOCK_LEAPDRIFT) make things easier.
>> For most purposes we need civil time, and a TAI clock doesn't solve the
>> problem that civil time is too difficult to get right.
> The "just use a different timescale" argument never will have much traction
> until the primary timescale is implemented correctly, robustly and universally.
> UTC isn't today.


All the many timescales, NTC, POSIX, GPS, 1588, (with the notable 
exception of GLOSNAS) have tried to, or wound up, side-stepping what is 
somehow perceived as the difficulties of implementing UTC. Its true that 
the UTC specifications are "fractured" (several standards bodies and 
documents). Apparently, the standards are so difficult to decipher 
everyone seems to give up and invent yet another timescale. In many 
discussions I've encountered misunderstandings, some subtle, some not so 
subtle. As a start, consolidating and clarifying it as an authoritative 
"engineering guideline" from some source would be very helpful.

> 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/20141001/5a6a1297/attachment.html>

More information about the LEAPSECS mailing list