[LEAPSECS] Leap seconds ain't broken

[Steve Summit]

Tom Van Baak wrote:
> That reminds me. I don't suppose we could get google, et al. to
> rename it UTX instead of UTC?

On a related note, there's the issue of knowing/confirming what
kind of time an NTP server is giving you.  (Stephen Colebourne
was asking about this last month, too.)

It'd be nice to extend NTP with some kind of "provenance" field
which could say that a certain server is delivering smeared time.
The same field could be used to make explicit the fact that
ut1-time.colorado.edu is delivering UT1.  (The same field
could *also* be used with a hypothetical set of NTP servers I'd
like to deploy that would deliver several phases of shifted time
such that, on one or another of them, every day's a leapsecond
day, so that people could temporarily sync to it to, like,
actually test how their systems behave in the face of leap
seconds.)

Since RFC 5905 describes new, tagged, extended fields for the NTP
protocol, this sort of extra information should be very easy to add.