Re: Internet-Draft on UTC-SLS

2006-01-19 Thread Poul-Henning Kamp
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Markus Kuhn writes: A new Internet-Draft with implementation guidelines on how to handle UTC leap seconds in Internet protocols was posted today on the IETF web site: Coordinated Universal Time with Smoothed Leap Seconds (UTC-SLS), Markus Kuhn, 18-Jan-06. (36752

Re: Internet-Draft on UTC-SLS

2006-01-19 Thread Markus Kuhn
Poul-Henning Kamp wrote on 2006-01-19 09:46 UTC: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-kuhn-leapsecond-00.txt The serious timekeeping people gave up on rubberseconds in 1972 and I will object with all that I can muster against reinventing them to paste over a problem that has a

Re: Internet-Draft on UTC-SLS

2006-01-19 Thread Ed Davies
Markus Kuhn wrote: A new Internet-Draft with implementation guidelines on how to handle UTC leap seconds in Internet protocols was posted today on the IETF web site: Coordinated Universal Time with Smoothed Leap Seconds (UTC-SLS), Markus Kuhn, 18-Jan-06. (36752 bytes)

Fixing POSIX time

2006-01-19 Thread Neal McBurnett
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 12:59:42PM +0100, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: I would far rather we tried to define a time API for POSIX to adopt that makes sense. By make sense I mean: o conforms to relevant international standards ie: recognizes the defininition of leap seconds

Re: Internet-Draft on UTC-SLS

2006-01-19 Thread M. Warner Losh
The biggest objection that I have to it is that NTP servers will be at least .5s off, which is far outside the normal range that NTP likes to operate. Unless the prceice interval is defined, you'll wind up with the stratum 1 servers putting out different times, which ntpd doesn't react well to.

Re: Internet-Draft on UTC-SLS

2006-01-19 Thread Rob Seaman
How delightful! A discussion about the design merits of actual competing technical proposals! One indication that the discussion is maturing is that someone with strong opinions on one extreme of the issues can find aspects to agree with and disagree with in each of the prior messages. I'll

Re: Internet-Draft on UTC-SLS

2006-01-19 Thread Rob Seaman
On Jan 19, 2006, at 10:02 AM, Rob Seaman wrote: How delightful! A discussion about the design merits of actual competing technical proposals! Apologies for failing to credit the quotes from Poul-Henning Kamp.

Re: Fixing POSIX time

2006-01-19 Thread Poul-Henning Kamp
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Neal McBurnett writes: On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 12:59:42PM +0100, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: Assign different timescales very different numeric epochs: TAI:1972-01-01 00:00:00 UTC For TAI I'd suggest 1958-01-01, when TAI and UT

Re: Internet-Draft on UTC-SLS

2006-01-19 Thread Markus Kuhn
Poul-Henning Kamp wrote on 2006-01-19 11:59 UTC: My objection is that you invent a new kind of seconds with new durations instead of sticking with the SI second that we know and love. Furthermore, you significantly loosen the precision specs set forth in the NTP protocol. Having just

Re: Fixing POSIX time

2006-01-19 Thread Poul-Henning Kamp
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], M. Warner Losh writes: I like this idea as well... Poul, maybe we should implement this on FreeBSD. I'd suggest working_time_t or correct_time_t as the name of the type to replace time_t which would be deprecated. :-) plenty_time_t :-) -- Poul-Henning Kamp |

Re: Internet-Draft on UTC-SLS

2006-01-19 Thread Poul-Henning Kamp
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Rob Seaman writes: if you look at *any* form of PLL (circuit or software), then you will find that its very purpose is to implement rubber seconds, that is to implement phase adjustments via low-pass filtered temporary changes in frequency. An excellent

Re: Internet-Draft on UTC-SLS

2006-01-19 Thread Markus Kuhn
M. Warner Losh wrote on 2006-01-19 16:58 UTC: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-kuhn-leapsecond-00.txt The biggest objection that I have to it is that NTP servers will be at least .5s off, which is far outside the normal range that NTP likes to operate. Unless the prceice interval is

Re: Internet-Draft on UTC-SLS

2006-01-19 Thread Poul-Henning Kamp
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Markus Kuhn writes: Now, please show some backbone and help solve the problem rather than add to the general kludgyness of computers. Been there, done that: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/time/c/ I remember looking at your proposal before and it suffers from a

Re: the GPS impending leap second bit

2006-01-19 Thread M. Warner Losh
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Steve Allen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: : On Thu 2006-01-19T18:30:02 +, Markus Kuhn hath writ: : GPS sends out announcements within days after IERS does, which is : excellent service. IERS announced the leap second on July 4th, about 6 weeks before it

McCarthy point (was: Fixing POSIX time)

2006-01-19 Thread Markus Kuhn
M. Warner Losh wrote on 2006-01-19 19:35 UTC: : Therefore, if people ask me for my favourite epoch for a new time scale, : then it is : : 2000-03-01 00:00:00 (preferably UTC, but I would not mind much :if it were TAI, or even GPS time) : : This epoch has the

Re: Internet-Draft on UTC-SLS

2006-01-19 Thread Poul-Henning Kamp
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Tim Shepard writes: The serious timekeeping people gave up on rubberseconds in 1972 and I will object with all that I can muster against reinventing them to paste over a problem that has a multitude of correct solutions. As I learned from a recent posting to this

Re: Internet-Draft on UTC-SLS

2006-01-19 Thread Markus Kuhn
Tim Shepard wrote on 2006-01-19 20:29 UTC: Coordinated Universal Time with Smoothed Leap Seconds (UTC-SLS), Markus Kuhn, 18-Jan-06. (36752 bytes) http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-kuhn-leapsecond-00.txt This draft bugs me a bit because it changes the length of a second (as

Re: McCarthy point (was: Fixing POSIX time)

2006-01-19 Thread Poul-Henning Kamp
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Markus Kuhn writes: All I wanted to say is that for a good choice of epoch, it would be nice if we agreed on it not only to within a few seconds (the leap-second problem), but also to within a few milli- or microseconds (the SI/TAI second problem). The latter seems

Re: Internet-Draft on UTC-SLS

2006-01-19 Thread M. Warner Losh
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Markus Kuhn [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: : M. Warner Losh wrote on 2006-01-19 19:20 UTC: : : In other words, *no* incompatible changes are made to the NTP protocol. : : In a correct UTC-SLS implementation, you should *not* be able to : : distinguish

Re: Internet-Draft on UTC-SLS

2006-01-19 Thread M. Warner Losh
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Markus Kuhn [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: : M. Warner Losh wrote on 2006-01-19 19:20 UTC: : Effectively, you'd have to have two time scales in the kernel. UTC : and UTC-SLS. You make it sound simple, but the hair in doing this may : be quite difficult.

Re: Internet-Draft on UTC-SLS

2006-01-19 Thread Ed Davies
Ed Davies: Appendix A argues against putting the adjustment interval after the leap second (method 4a) by pointing out that some time signals contain announcements of the leap second before it happens but not after. Rob Seaman: Right, ... Ed Davies: I think a stronger argument against

The parade of the leap second

2006-01-19 Thread James Maynard
On Saturday, 2006-01-07 17:38:02 UTC, Rob Seaman wrote: Now, what would that be in French? La Parade du Saut de Seconde? Methinks rather Le défilé de la seconde intercalaire. I'm new to this mailing list, having found it by a reference in the time-nuts list. -- James Maynard Salem, Oregon,

Re: Internet-Draft on UTC-SLS

2006-01-19 Thread Poul-Henning Kamp
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], M. Warner Losh writes: In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Markus Kuhn [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: : M. Warner Losh wrote on 2006-01-19 19:20 UTC: : Effectively, you'd have to have two time scales in the kernel. UTC : and UTC-SLS. You make it sound simple, but