> From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <[email protected]> > Date: June 1, 2011 11:12:59 PM MST > Subject: [LEAPSECS] Leap second mess at NASA > > http://cdf.gsfc.nasa.gov/html/leapseconds_requirements.html > > In particular section 3.3
Verbs are good. What exactly is being asserted about the implications of leap
seconds for this grab bag of NASA missions? There are many NASA centers, GSFC
is just one (and many other missions are managed by other centers). There are
many data formats, CDF is just one:
http://cdf.gsfc.nasa.gov/
Additional discussion of leap seconds under this narrow context is at:
http://cdf.gsfc.nasa.gov/html/leapseconds.html
Perhaps what is being asserted is that the ITU-R has not performed due
diligence, since the CDF project at the Goddard Space Flight Center appears
completely unaware of the ITU-R's initiative to make their current efforts moot?
From http://cdf.gsfc.nasa.gov/:
>> 04/21/2011: On the horizon... CDF will support leap seconds in the future
>> release. CDF support staff Robert Candey <<inline: new.gif>>
>> wrote two documents about the requirements for handling the leap seconds >> and our development approach .
<<inline: new.gif>>
("NEW" in the original.)
Surely NASA is the definition of a significant stakeholder for precision
timekeeping? Due diligence by the ITU-R on a project to completely redefine
civil timekeeping standards (the issue is UTC and TAI, not leap seconds) would
leave persistent and visible markers scattered throughout the many, many NASA
projects (and their web sites). On the contrary, there is a remarkable lack of
such evidence (anywhere, not just at NASA) after a dozen years of this
unilateral ITU-R scorched Earth campaign.
As I've said before, any system engineer knows that the quickest way to
introduce change (not to mention the best way) is to seek consensus *before*
designing, implementing, testing and deploying a new system.
For instance - is there any evidence that the ITU-R process has been informed
by the CDF's requirements document? What sandbox testing has occurred? Design
reviews?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_review_(US_Government)
"Fait accompli" is another way of saying "lazy".
Rob
_______________________________________________ LEAPSECS mailing list [email protected] http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
