On Jan 25, 2012, at 1:05, Michael Sokolov wrote: > I vigorously advocate only the general idea of rubberization. The > exact mode of rubberization is up to each individual implementor in > practice.
Why do we even try coordinating our clock-ticking if that's okay? > Alice and Bob may choose two different rubberization schemes, but the > magnitude of the difference between their clock readings can't exceed > 1 s at any point. How should public NTP servers behave during the leap second period if there's no agreed upon "rubberization scheme"? Ask -- http://askask.com/ _______________________________________________ LEAPSECS mailing list LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
