[LEAPSECS] why not ITU-T?

2010-09-06 Thread Steve Allen
I wonder if there is not some perceived urgency for the ITU-R to act on UTC because of the changes in technology. ITU-R covers broadcasts, but most of the discussion in this mail refers to the internet. That is covered by the ITU-T, not the ITU-R. In response to the rapid evolution in computing

Re: [LEAPSECS] why not ITU-T?

2010-09-06 Thread Poul-Henning Kamp
In message 20100906164911.ga27...@ucolick.org, Steve Allen writes: Is it already the case that the de facto authority over the time scale of the world should reside with the ITU-T rather than with the ITU-R? So, Astronomers should Own Time, because they did it first, but ITU-T should take time

Re: [LEAPSECS] why not ITU-T?

2010-09-06 Thread Steve Allen
On Mon 2010-09-06T17:11:11 +, Poul-Henning Kamp hath writ: So, Astronomers should Own Time, because they did it first, but ITU-T should take time over from ITU-R because they are more recent ? Rather because the ITU-T process is not as dysfunctional as the ITU-R. Given that ITU-T is

Re: [LEAPSECS] why not ITU-T?

2010-09-06 Thread Poul-Henning Kamp
In message 20100906171714.ga27...@ucolick.org, Steve Allen writes: On Mon 2010-09-06T17:11:11 +, Poul-Henning Kamp hath writ: As such it is long the case that time decisively belongs to Dave Mills and the NTP crew. We in the NTP crew would love to own it, but I can guarantee you that leap

Re: [LEAPSECS] why not ITU-T?

2010-09-06 Thread Nero Imhard
On 2010-09-06, at 19:28, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: We in the NTP crew would love to own it, but I can guarantee you that leap seconds would not survive long if it were offered to us :-) Except that the ntp crew is much more likely to obtain this goal by switching to TAI instead of upsetting