[LEAPSECS] Do lawyers care (know) about leap seconds?
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.
> LEAPSECS mailing list
> LEAPSECS at leapsecond.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the LEAPSECS