Hello The 2028 option is there if it looks less likely that there will be a positive leap second than was estimated earlier this year. It is there to allow a bit more time for adapting to the new UT1-UTC tolerance, if the risk is acceptable.
Regards Michael On Wed, 3 Dec 2025 at 2:46 am, Poul-Henning Kamp <[email protected]> wrote: > -------- > Magnus Danielson writes: > > > For the record, when ITU-T Q13/15 had BIPM as invited guest to discuss > > consequences of negative leapseconds, we in Q13 strongly recommended > > that a wider tolerance for UT1-UTC difference be implemented sooner, to > > avoid negative leapsecons, as we forsee a larger set of consequence than > > for positive leapseconds, even if some testing have been done. > > That's why the 2028 option puzzles me? > > Nothing in their presentation even hints that somebody has as much > as vaguely speculated that 2027 might be too early ? > > I wonder if it is simply a legal/procedure thing ? > > Does anybody here know what the precise legal path is from CPGM to > the BIPM Director's inbox ? > > Does it to go through both IAU and ITU ? > > > -- > Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 > [email protected] | 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 > [email protected] > https://pairlist6.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs >
_______________________________________________ LEAPSECS mailing list [email protected] https://pairlist6.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
