On Feb 14, 2006, at 12:50 PM, Markus Kuhn wrote:
You can, of course, define, publish, implement, and promote a new version (4?) of NTP that can also diseminate TAI, EOPs, leap-second tables, and other good things. I'm all for it.
But why are you for it? Before investing large amounts of time and money in developing and deploying a large new timekeeping system, wouldn't one want to invest smaller amounts in exploring the issues and options? Heck - one has to imagine that a number of successful grant applications are lurking around here somewhere. Time is an issue that cuts across every funding agency out there.
I personally would very much prefer to see a protocol specification that clearly indicates on the wire if something other than UTC is provided.
Sure. Sounds like a clear requirement for whatever system comes next. This is equivalent to the central problem with the leap hour kludge. If it ain't universal time - don't pretend it is. Surely we could devise some safeguards, starting with limiting the testbed to a closed network of systems dedicated to timekeeping test applications.
Anything else sounds as dangerous to me as using the same kind of plug in countries that use 115 V and 230 V power.
And yet you can buy dumb little conversion plugs that perform no function other than allowing US electronic devices to fit straight into European outlets and vice-versa. It is the devices' power supplies that are responsible for adapting to the voltage and line frequency. That you can't safely use the same plug for simple high current devices like hair driers is just another one of those inconvenient facts of nature. What are the classifiable, quantifiable, facts of nature for timekeeping in the real world today?
Naive users exist, and if things appear to fit together, they will be plugged together by someone.
And that is one of the main points for building such a testbed system. What are the real risks? What features are required to mitigate those risks? What level of naivete should be tolerated? "Users" (meaning everybody, everywhere) are expected to master the intricacies of sexigesimal notation - in both analog and digital formats. What is the appropriate level of timekeeping expertise that can be relied on for various classes of user?
This is more likely to add to the problem than to the solution.
I'm not advocating a solution. In the absence of additional data, I expect I will never be moved from my current position of supporting the UTC status quo. As your comments imply, the alternatives are too dangerous. If any of us want to convince "the other side" (whichever side that is) to change their minds, surely assembling hard data is the first step.
Usability experiences gained in a testbed run by a small group of knowledgeable enthusiasts do not necessarily scale into the real world.
No indeed, but what greater folly to suggest that omitting such testbed runs might somehow build more confidence in proposed solutions. What is the opposite of "knowledgeable enthusiasts"? Should these issues rather be left to "ignorant apathetes"?
Besides, bastardised "NTP" servers that replace UTC with TAI and UT1 have been around for quite some some; for instance Patrick Wallace (Rutherford Appleton Laboratory) reported at the 2003 Torino meeting about his "UT1P" server.
Well, yeah - I didn't claim my proposal was either new or rocket science. Pat has lead a lot of such efforts over his career. The whole point is to find a simple way to start to actually experiment with and develop new ideas for timekeeping infrastructure. Surely I'm not the only one who is dreadfully tired of hypothetical discussions? Rob