On Jan 31, 2011, at 12:40 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
> However, given the tolerance of DUT1 is .9 and not .5, I'm sure that an extra
> last leap second could be tossed in to give vendors more time to cope...
Since this whole discussion has been about "predictability", it would be
prudent (whatever side of the issue one is on) to include such an "extra last
leap second" in the language of the draft. Something like:
"This change will occur no sooner than N years after adoption of this
resolution. After N years have elapsed, current procedures will be followed to
schedule one final leap second in the timescale broadcast via ITU compliant
facilities."
Note that this would apply to implementing the Torino TI timescale as well.
Rob
_______________________________________________
LEAPSECS mailing list
[email protected]
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
