On Mon 2023-03-20T19:36:51+0000 Michael Deckers via LEAPSECS hath writ: > � This seems to be lenient enough to allow for not scheduling > � a negative leap second even in the case that the difference > � (UT1 - UTC) should go a bit below -1 s before 2035.
And today in the NTP working group mail list we see that the big guns expect to force the issue because > From: Doug Arnold <doug.arnold=40meinberg-usa....@dmarc.ietf.org> > Subject: Re: [Ntp] draft-ntp-ntpv5-requirements update for IETF 116 > > Re leap smearing: > > Operators from multiple data centers tell me that they intend to > smear leap seconds. When I pointed out the pitfalls they were > undeterred. I have come to understand that leap smearing is viewed as > less problematic than trying to fix leap second handing in distributed > database software. they have taken the stance that if leap seconds do not go away then they will smear. This is like Eucla Australia setting their clocks the way they please and daring the state government to do something about it. -- Steve Allen <s...@ucolick.org> WGS-84 (GPS) UCO/Lick Observatory--ISB 260 Natural Sciences II, Room 165 Lat +36.99855 1156 High Street Voice: +1 831 459 3046 Lng -122.06015 Santa Cruz, CA 95064 https://www.ucolick.org/~sla/ Hgt +250 m _______________________________________________ LEAPSECS mailing list LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com https://pairlist6.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
