Re: An immodest proposal

2006-02-14 Thread Rob Seaman
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

Re: An immodest proposal

2006-02-14 Thread M. Warner Losh
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Neal McBurnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: : On Mon, Feb 06, 2006 at 10:37:37AM -0700, Rob Seaman wrote: : 1) TAI can be recovered from UTC given a table of DTAI. : 2) NTP can convey TAI as simply as UTC. : 3) Deploy a small network of NTP

Re: An immodest proposal

2006-02-14 Thread M. Warner Losh
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Rob Seaman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: : 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

Re: An immodest proposal

2006-02-14 Thread Neal McBurnett
First, to review, as I noted on this list just over a month ago, there is an IETF NTP working group now, working on version 4: http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/ntp-charter.html NIST has a leap seconds table: ftp://time.nist.gov/pub/leap-seconds.list Current xntpd code can use that table, and

Re: An immodest proposal

2006-02-14 Thread M. Warner Losh
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Neal McBurnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: : UTC time stamps in NTP are ambiguous. TAI ones are not. UTC time : stamps do not convey enough information to properly implement things : like intervals, while TAI ones do. The NTPNG stuff that I've seen :

Re: An immodest proposal

2006-02-14 Thread Poul-Henning Kamp
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], M. Warner Losh writes: [*] All variable radix counting conventions are insane by (my humble) definition :-). Off-topic: While not exactly variable radix counting, I read a book called A computer called LEO about the first commercial use of computers in the Lyons Tea

Re: An immodest proposal

2006-02-14 Thread Rob Seaman
On Feb 14, 2006, at 2:28 PM, M. Warner Losh wrote:UTC time stamps in NTP are ambiguous.  TAI ones are not.Requirements should be kept separate from implementation.  Whatever the underlying timescale, certain external global requirements apply.  Whether NTP or some other implementation properly