Re: Introduction of long term scheduling

2007-01-08 Thread Clive D.W. Feather
Rob Seaman said: Which raises the question of how concisely one can express a leap second table. Firstly, I agree with Steve when he asks why bother?. You're solving the wrong problem. However, having said that: So, let's see - assume: 1) all 20th century leap seconds can be

Re: Introduction of long term scheduling

2007-01-08 Thread Poul-Henning Kamp
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Zefram writes: Clive D.W. Feather wrote: Firstly, I agree with Steve when he asks why bother?. You're solving the wrong problem. Conciseness is useful for network protocols. On the other hand, one should not forget that the OSI protocols was killed by conciseness to

Re: Introduction of long term scheduling

2007-01-08 Thread Zefram
Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: We certainly don't want to transmit the leap-second table with every single NTP packet, because, as a result, we would need to examine it every time to see if something changed. Once we've got an up-to-date table, barring faults, we only need to check to see whether the

Re: Introduction of long term scheduling

2007-01-08 Thread Tony Finch
On Mon, 8 Jan 2007, Zefram wrote: Possibly TT could also be used in some form, for interval calculations in the pre-caesium age. In that case you'd need a model (probably involving rubber seconds) of the TT-UT translation. It doesn't seem worth doing to me because of the small number of

Re: Introduction of long term scheduling

2007-01-08 Thread M. Warner Losh
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tony Finch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: : On Sat, 6 Jan 2007, M. Warner Losh wrote: : : Unfortunately, the kernel has to have a notion of time stepping around : a leap-second if it implements ntp. : : Surely ntpd could be altered to isolate the kernel from