>It hurts that bad huh? Well, there may be ample reason to base telco >or geek time on something else than UTC. Fine. What about TAI? I mean, >it's a familiar and established time scale, and has just the >properties the ITU seems to be after. Really, why not TAI?
Because the time-lords get a rather fetching crimson face-color whenever somebody proposes that ? TAI is only a paperclock and I gather the time-lords are afraid to loose control of it or something. >How big can DUT1 become then? Would it be reasonable to wish for the >upper bound to stay below the accuracy of a sundial? DUT1 is unlimited. Sundials run on local civil time, not on UTC. >What does the ITU proposal say about the new limit of DUT1? It does not mention a limit, as there will be none. Poul-Henning -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 [email protected] | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. _______________________________________________ LEAPSECS mailing list [email protected] http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
