On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 18:06:25 -0700
Russ Allbery <[email protected]> wrote:
> Or, hm, I suppose if you squint at it right, you can decide that
> "number of seconds" isn't just elapsed actual time, but includes the
> leap seconds that were inserted. Which would also work for our
> phrasing. Maybe we could just say that explicitly. Something like:
>
> the number of seconds and nanoseconds since midnight or 0 hour
> January 1, 1970 Coordinated Universal Time (UTC), including any
> leap seconds inserted into UTC.
It's very possible I am backwards on this, but shouldn't this be
"excluding any leap seconds"? That is, in our time representation,
there is a difference of 1 "second" (however we define "second") between
the times 31 Dec 2005 23:59:59 and 01 Jan 2006 00:00:00, even though
there was a leap second at 31 Dec 2005 23:59:60. That is, I thought we'd
be following UTC more than TAI.
And also, I did find another instance of this being mentioned in IETF
RFCs. RFC 4049 states in Section 2 (at the top of the second page):
The integer value is the number of seconds, excluding leap seconds,
after midnight UTC, January 1, 1970.
Would that work for us?
--
Andrew Deason
[email protected]
_______________________________________________
AFS3-standardization mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization
