-------- In message <20150123123330.llbzydw5%sdao...@yandex.com>, Steffen Nurpmeso write s:
> |Bulletin C is issued whether or not a leap second occasion \ > |(currently June and December, but could be any month) corresponds \ > |to an actual leap second. The encoding (as in PHK’s example) \ > |should be able to represent a positive, negative or absent leap second. > >That doesn't make sense to me. An absent leap second doesn't >change the TAI-UTC drift, so why would you update the record? >Shall an announcment be taken back for whatever reason, the old >record had to be restored. It's the difference between "have not been told that X will happen" and "have been told that X will not happen." -- 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 https://pairlist6.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs