Warner Losh wrote: > I'd love to kill leap seconds. Lots of my problems go away if they are just > gone. > > However, if that isn't possible, I'd be happier with a loser bounds on DUT1 > that targets <0.5s but can accept up to 2s of drift if the benefit from that > loser tolerance is a 10 year or longer look ahead horizon. That would go a > long way towards reducing the pain associated with leap seconds since the > vast majority of systems have a 10 year or less life expectancy, but much > longer then 6 months.
It's often taken as a given that a good compromise leaves both parties feeling some pain. In that case, Warner describes a well balanced position. I suspect that I would feel a similar level of residual "discomfort" as Warner - just from the opposite point of view. Which is to say that I'd love to see this whole discussion go away in favor of the status quo. Lots of new problems never show up in the first place if leap seconds continue as currently. If that isn't possible, however, I can live with a carefully controlled reduction in the precision of UTC if this can significantly lengthen the scheduling horizon. This is simply project management 101. Performance is traded for schedule...with a very keen eye toward cost and risks. Rob _______________________________________________ LEAPSECS mailing list [email protected] http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
