[This message was posted by Fernando Jeronymo of Societe Generale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> to the "FAST Protocol" discussion forum at http://fixprotocol.org/discuss/46. You can reply to it on-line at http://fixprotocol.org/discuss/read/ea3a6486 - PLEASE DO NOT REPLY BY MAIL.]
Isn't the issue of leap seconds one of synchronization? After all leap seconds means that the clock of the encoder is at a time before or after the clock of (zero or more) decoders right? If instead of saying that the reference time is Monday midnight, the encoder sends an initial reference date/timestamp stating he is on Wednesday, December 03rd 12am I can compare that against my decoding time (lets say I am on Tuesday, December 2nd 11pm) and I automatically know that they are 1 hour ahead of me. Then all I have to do is do the epoch of the encoder -1hour and I have the actual timestamp on my side. That way we establish a way of evading the leap seconds problem and also clock synchronization. What do you think? [You can unsubscribe from this discussion group by sending a message to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Financial Information eXchange" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/FIX-Protocol?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
