On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 06:54, Ask Bjørn Hansen <a...@develooper.com> wrote:
> > 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"? > Background that may be helpful: Ask runs/coordinates the pool.ntp.orginfrastructure, providing NTP to the masses. -- Sanjeev Gupta +65 98551208 http://www.linkedin.com/in/ghane
_______________________________________________ LEAPSECS mailing list LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
