> On Mar 12, 2015, at 3:57 PM, Tom Van Baak <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Brooks,
> 
> A couple more comments on your questions.
> 
>> Many timekeeping systems seem to be designed for only indicating "now"
>> counting forward, including NTP, POSIX, and PTP, taking short-cuts to
>> avoid supplying full Leap Second and local-time metadata.
> 
> I'm not clear why you call that a "short-cut". It's just how clocks works. 
> They tick forward and there is no requirement that they keep a record of time 
> in the past. Furthermore, any clock keeping UTC has no need for local time 
> metadata. So you should not lump the tz mess into the simplicity of keeping 
> UTC.
> 
> The only thing a UTC clock requires is advanced notice of the length of the 
> current minute. This is required by no later than second 58 in the minute. 
> But for practical reasons a UTC clock typically gets more notice than that, 
> as you know.
> 
>> I've never
>> been able to understand why that practice persists despite the obvious
>> need to be able to fully represent the entire post-1972 UTC timescale.
>> The policy and forms of the announce signals and Leap Seconds table are
>> obvious missing links, and its regrettable no official attempt has been
>> made since 1972 to rectify those inadequacies.
> 
> I don't know what you mean by represent the entire post-1972 timescale. Or 
> why such a need is "obvious".
> 
> A clock does not need to represent the infinite past, present, and future of 
> a timescale. In the case of UTC the near future is unknowable anyway. The 
> present is the requirement. And the past may or may not be a requirement 
> depending on the user. Certainly a stand-alone RTC or time code generator or 
> data logger or cesium clock keeping UTC does not need to know the past. So a 
> historical table is not important. Only the leap second notification is 
> needed.
> 
> That's why the time codes you see broadcast, like WWVB or GPS only include a 
> leap second notification and not a full table.
> 
> By the way, the downside of WWVB's format is that it is not possible to 
> obtain TAI. With GPS, at least, TAI is not only possible but easier and more 
> reliable than UTC.

A clock doesn’t need to know its past. But a time scale is more than just how 
many seconds the current minute will have. It has a history and to compute 
elapsed time in that time scale, you need to know its history.

Warner

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

_______________________________________________
LEAPSECS mailing list
[email protected]
https://pairlist6.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs

Reply via email to