On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 2:10 PM Steve Allen <s...@ucolick.org> wrote:
> 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. > Pragmatically, it's a lot easier to smear 3 or 4 more times than to fix all the code that leap seconds break. Smearing is an ugly hack that allows broken code to get things less wrong than powering through a leap second and the result +1s or -1s errors. The trains must run on time, UTC be damned, eh? Warner
_______________________________________________ LEAPSECS mailing list LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com https://pairlist6.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
