On 2012-01-09, at 20:42, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > It can easily be argued that if you need UT to better than 1s, you > should use one of IERS's UT products and you will have five years to > make the fix.
This is the arrogance I mentioned earlier. What good is a definition (that of UTC being a good approximation of UT) if you can't rely on it? You keep implying that it is reasonable for the ITU to change this, and now you suggest that the IERS is somehow required to be more reliable? Now why is that? It may start to make sense once it is made explicit that the proposal is to effectively *abandon* UTC and, as Dave pointed out, that a new name is a necessity. N _______________________________________________ LEAPSECS mailing list LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
