In message:
Nero Imhard writes:
:
: On 2010-09-06, at 19:28, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
: >
: > We in the NTP crew would love to own it, but I can guarantee you
: > that leap seconds would not survive long if it were offered to us :-)
:
: Except that the ntp crew is much more likely
On 2010-09-06, at 19:28, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>
> We in the NTP crew would love to own it, but I can guarantee you
> that leap seconds would not survive long if it were offered to us :-)
Except that the ntp crew is much more likely to obtain this goal by switching
to TAI instead of upsettin
In message <20100906171714.ga27...@ucolick.org>, Steve Allen writes:
>On Mon 2010-09-06T17:11:11 +, Poul-Henning Kamp hath writ:
>As such it is long the case that time decisively belongs to
>Dave Mills and the NTP crew.
We in the NTP crew would love to own it, but I can guarantee you
that lea
On Mon 2010-09-06T17:11:11 +, Poul-Henning Kamp hath writ:
> So, Astronomers should Own Time, because they did it first, but
> ITU-T should take time over from ITU-R because they are more recent ?
Rather because the ITU-T process is not as dysfunctional as the ITU-R.
> Given that ITU-T is irr
In message <20100906164911.ga27...@ucolick.org>, Steve Allen writes:
>Is it already the case that the de facto authority over the time scale
>of the world should reside with the ITU-T rather than with the ITU-R?
So, Astronomers should Own Time, because they did it first, but
ITU-T should take tim
I wonder if there is not some perceived urgency for the ITU-R to act
on UTC because of the changes in technology. ITU-R covers broadcasts,
but most of the discussion in this mail refers to the internet.
That is covered by the ITU-T, not the ITU-R.
In response to the rapid evolution in computing t
