On 17 Oct 2014, at 14:33, Warner Losh i...@bsdimp.com wrote:
On Oct 16, 2014, at 11:48 PM, Steve Allen s...@ucolick.org wrote:
On Thu 2014-10-16T17:07:02 -0700, Warner Losh hath writ:
On Oct 16, 2014, at 3:39 PM, Rob Seaman sea...@noao.edu wrote:
Nothing would be renamed. Nothing would be redefined.
Nothing would change.
I am not understanding the subtleties in that statement. It seems to
me that if the ITU-R were to adopt the conclusion from the 2003 Torino
colloquium organized by WP7A, recommend that the radio broadcast time
signals no longer include leap seconds, and also that the time scale
in the broadcasts be named International Time, that would be a change.
Indeed, it would be a change with a character that would be welcomed
by the systems which do not handle leap seconds well.
I’m afraid that if there are two official time scales, both maintained,
and both propagated due to contract language, then the “new” one
without leap seconds would be this oddball thing that nobody actually
implements or that some people implement and others don’t and we’d
be left with a mess. Perhaps not the same mess we have today, but
a new, different mess.
How would it differ from the UK, where legal time is UT1, but
the reality is that everyone uses UTC and even the allegedly legal
sources of time are actually UTC (for example, in the 1990s the
project that first exposed me to NTP was forced to use MSF receivers,
rather than GPS, because MSF is UK legal time, when in fact
MSF receivers tick UTC(NPL), not UT1 --- I've never seen an MSF receiver
that can make use of the 0.1s resolution DUT1).
ian
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
___
LEAPSECS mailing list
LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com
https://pairlist6.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
