On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 2:10 PM Steve Allen wrote:
> On Mon 2023-03-20T19:36:51+ 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
> > 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
