Tom Van Baak wrote: > That reminds me. I don't suppose we could get google, et al. to > rename it UTX instead of UTC?
On a related note, there's the issue of knowing/confirming what kind of time an NTP server is giving you. (Stephen Colebourne was asking about this last month, too.) It'd be nice to extend NTP with some kind of "provenance" field which could say that a certain server is delivering smeared time. The same field could be used to make explicit the fact that ut1-time.colorado.edu is delivering UT1. (The same field could *also* be used with a hypothetical set of NTP servers I'd like to deploy that would deliver several phases of shifted time such that, on one or another of them, every day's a leapsecond day, so that people could temporarily sync to it to, like, actually test how their systems behave in the face of leap seconds.) Since RFC 5905 describes new, tagged, extended fields for the NTP protocol, this sort of extra information should be very easy to add. _______________________________________________ LEAPSECS mailing list [email protected] https://pairlist6.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
