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
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
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
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
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
:
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
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
