[LEAPSECS] Time Synchronization in Financial markets

[Brooks Harris]

On 2016-10-09 11:32 PM, John Sauter wrote:
> On Sun, 2016-10-09 at 15:12 -0400, Brooks Harris wrote:
>
>>> I took the lack of mention of leap seconds to mean that leap
>>> seconds
>>> ere not a problem.  The output of the NISTDC units is an
>>> astonishingly
>>>   accurate 1 pulse per second.  That feeds NTP, which handles leap
>>> seconds using a table.  As long as the table is kept up to date,
>>> everyone agrees on each second's name.
>>   Except the one to be called YYYY-MM-DDT23:59:60.
>>
>> There are 86401 pegs in the (positive) Leap Second UTC day. There are
>> 86400 holes in traditional timescales in which to put them. Something
>> has to to go missing - the mapping is indeterminate. Common practice
>> of introducing Leap Seconds on local timescales simultaneous with its
>> introduction at UTC places these indeterminate labels at different
>> time-of-day points along each local timescale. Non standardized and
>> politically driven Daylight Savings rules further complicates when
>> these indeterminate moments occur. Meantime there is no standardized
>> way to keep the Leap Second tables automatically updated to begin
>> with.
>>
>> -Brooks
> Not being a traditionalist myself, I don't feel that there is anything
> wrong with 23:59:60 as a label for a particular second.  Thus, I don't
> feel the need to map the 86,401 seconds of the last day of 2016 into
> 86,400 "holes", and therefore I do not suffer any indeterminacy.
>      John Sauter (John_Sauter at systemeyescomputerstore.com)
You are a fortunate individual. I continue to suffer from intermittent 
lags due to temporal radiation exposure.
-Brooks
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20161010/5ebabd2e/attachment.html>