In message <82c28c2d-c797-4c56-a2e9-b65f38faf...@bsdimp.com>, Warner Losh write s:
>The side channel issue is why I've advocated, with others, a much >longer time horizon for leap seconds. This would allow the useful >life of most products to have no need for a communications side >channel to get this data. I advocated that at my presentation at the USNO Colloqium and was informed afterwards that a military officer in the audience, "with a lot of stripes" quite audibly had whispered "No F***ING Way!" The sentiment or idea was not elaborated on when I chatted with that officer over tea afterwards, but he did make it clear that he "wanted leap-seconds GONE!". I suspect that a compromise position such as "10 years irevokable leap-second notice" will be a very hard sell. In fact, since nobody but me and Warner seems to be even willing to entertain any but two extreme positions, it seems very likely that the officers sentiment is spot on. I think there is a remote chance that if the LEAPSECS audienc decided to push for such a compromise solution, we might be able to push it through ITU, but it would require a concerted and whole-hearted effort. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 p...@freebsd.org | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. _______________________________________________ LEAPSECS mailing list LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
