I understand that virtually nothing in the IETF outside of time
synchronization protocols refers to non-UTC or non-civil time scales.  I
also understand it's too late at this juncture to contemplate adding a
non-leap time scale to this document.

I do however think it's worth a few words about the limitations of
scheduling whenever leap seconds are imminent.  I'll put my thoughts into
the IESG review, though.

On Tue, Jul 29, 2025 at 12:16 PM <[email protected]> wrote:

> Hi Erik,
>
>
>
> Thanks for the comment.
>
>
>
> The restriction you quoted was actually imported from rfc3339#section-5.7.
> Also, we leverage base type (date-and-time) defined in 6991/6991bis:
>
>
>
>       The date-and-time type is a profile of the ISO 8601
>
>       standard for representation of dates and times using the
>
>       Gregorian calendar.  The profile is defined by the
>
>       date-time production in Section 5.6 of RFC 3339 and the
>
>       update defined in Section 2 of RFC 9557 . The value of
>
>       60 for seconds is allowed only in the case of leap seconds.
>
>
>
> Unless I’m mistaken, even recent updates such as rfc9557 do not support
> timescales other than UTC.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Med
>
>
>
> *De :* Erik Kline <[email protected]>
> *Envoyé :* mercredi 23 juillet 2025 16:44
> *À :* [email protected]
> *Objet :* [netmod] draft-ietf-netmod-schedule-yang and leap seconds
>
>
>
>
>
> <no hats/>
>
>
>
> All,
>
>
>
> (context: prompted by my question in TVR)
>
>
>
> I see that in draft-ietf-netmod-schedule-yang Section 4 it advises:
>
>
>
>    *  The second for date and time values MUST have the value "60" at
>       the end of months in which a leap second occurs.
>
>
>
> but I fear this is not sufficient.  A scheduling entity in a data center
> taking its time from a leap smearing [1, 2] source would probably not know
> that this needs to be done, and its notion of time would be
> subtly different over a span of (typically) 24 hours prior to the leap
> second.
>
>
>
> Would it be possible to also include some time reference that doesn't have
> to deal with leap seconds, like TAI [3, 4]?
>
>
>
> -ek
>
>
>
> [1] https://developers.google.com/time/smear
>
> [2]
> https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/aws/look-before-you-leap-the-coming-leap-second-and-aws/
>
> [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Atomic_Time
>
> [4] https://maia.usno.navy.mil/ser7/tai-utc.dat
>
> ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations 
> confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
> pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu 
> ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
> a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages 
> electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
> Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou 
> falsifie. Merci.
>
> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged 
> information that may be protected by law;
> they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete 
> this message and its attachments.
> As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been 
> modified, changed or falsified.
> Thank you.
>
>
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]

Reply via email to