Re: [LEAPSECS] This year's Y2K: 'Leap second' threatens to break the Internet -Brooks
On Tue 2015-01-13T11:03:35 -0500, Brooks Harris hath writ: This year's Y2K: 'Leap second' threatens to break the Internet http://money.cnn.com/2015/01/13/technology/leap-second/index.html In that article is a link to a recent version of the Draft CPM document with the options that are being wordsmithed before the final tweak gets presented to the WRC in November http://acma.gov.au/Industry/Spectrum/Spectrum-planning/International-planning-ITU-and-other-international-planning-bodies/wrc-15-agenda-item-114 At the moment it still has options A, B, and C. There is also a similarly recent writeup from the ITU-R itself at https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-R/Documents/ITU-R-FAQ-UTC.pdf which gives a deeper story about the lack of vote in 2012 to ensure that all the technical options have been fully addressed in further studies related to the issue. It was necessary because the decision was not only of a technical nature but had some regulatory and legal consequences. -- Steve Allen s...@ucolick.orgWGS-84 (GPS) UCO/Lick Observatory--ISB Natural Sciences II, Room 165Lat +36.99855 1156 High StreetVoice: +1 831 459 3046 Lng -122.06015 Santa Cruz, CA 95064http://www.ucolick.org/~sla/ Hgt +250 m ___ LEAPSECS mailing list LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com https://pairlist6.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
Re: [LEAPSECS] stale leap second information
If I understand the provenance, BIPM is responsible for maintaining atomic time and TAI, IERS is responsible maintaining for UT1 and Leap Seconds, and ITU is responsible for time dissemination. Whats not so clear, and it would be reassuring to know, is how the information is officially shared between these bodies and to what degree its automated. I don't think the ITU does any actual dissemination. They don't run any servers or radio transmitters. I picture the ITU as a level higher than that. They coordinate things like We all agree to use leap seconds and BIPM will figure out when they happen. -- These are my opinions. I hate spam. ___ LEAPSECS mailing list LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com https://pairlist6.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
Re: [LEAPSECS] This year's Y2K: 'Leap second' threatens to break the Internet -Brooks
Brooks Harris bro...@edlmax.com wrote: |This year's Y2K: 'Leap second' threatens to break the Internet |http://money.cnn.com/2015/01/13/technology/leap-second/index.html I liked very much that one of the first things Jobs' widow did was to spend money for high quality journalism. Oh man, *how* necessary that would be for a free world. --steffen ___ LEAPSECS mailing list LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com https://pairlist6.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
Re: [LEAPSECS] stale leap second information
In message AF8BF6DCD7234A3489E799728A5F4D01@pc52, Tom Van Baak writes: I'm more of a minimalist. Try this 40-line text file instead: http://maia.usno.navy.mil/ser7/tai-utc.dat This simple file has been around since the 90's and is always right. Ehh It may be in a purely technical sense, but in these days of cyberwar worries a lot of people will not be legally able to rely on it anymore... -- 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
Re: [LEAPSECS] stale leap second information
On Tue 2015-01-13T07:44:42 -0500, Brooks Harris hath writ: That's what I meant - there needs to be multiple ways, appropriate to each architecture or purpose, to obtain the information. So, that's why I suggested it as an API: a clearly defined set of metadata that could be implemented in compatible ways in many forms. Please look at the IETF tzdist charter https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/tzdist/charter/ and its draft document https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tzdist-service/ In the discussion list it has already been demonstrated how this service can supply the leap second information as well as all the time zone information. There is already a test implementation serving that data in the form of TAI as a timezone offset from UTC. The announcement of the serving providing that is in the e-mail at http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tzdist/current/msg01085.html There are currently two forms in which the data are served, as iCalendar (RFC 5545) VTIMEZONE records and as json. In addition the discussion has contemplated the possibility of serving the binary data chunks which are the result of the TimeZone zic and typically found in Unix /usr/share/zoneinfo -- Steve Allen s...@ucolick.orgWGS-84 (GPS) UCO/Lick Observatory--ISB Natural Sciences II, Room 165Lat +36.99855 1156 High StreetVoice: +1 831 459 3046 Lng -122.06015 Santa Cruz, CA 95064http://www.ucolick.org/~sla/ Hgt +250 m ___ LEAPSECS mailing list LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com https://pairlist6.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
Re: [LEAPSECS] stale leap second information
On Jan 13, 2015, at 6:10 AM, Brooks Harris bro...@edlmax.com wrote: On 2015-01-12 06:42 PM, Rob Seaman wrote: On Jan 12, 2015, at 2:53 PM, Martin Burnicki martin.burni...@meinberg.de wrote: I've suggested at various occasions that the IERS should be the authoritative source for a leap second file. There were discussions at both the 2013 and 2011 UTC meetings Which meetings? I mean, what standards body? Institutions other than standards bodies are interested in this issue. See sponsors at the bottom of: http://futureofutc.org The proceedings were published by the American Astronautical Society. If I understand the provenance, BIPM is responsible for maintaining atomic time and TAI, IERS is responsible maintaining for UT1 and Leap Seconds, and ITU is responsible for time dissemination. Whats not so clear, and it would be reassuring to know, is how the information is officially shared between these bodies and to what degree its automated. If ITU is responsible for time dissemination it would seem like they should also be responsible for time metadata dissemination, ie: Leap Second announcements, history, and related. The International Telecommunication Union is a specialized agency of the United Nations. ITU-R TF.460.6 (and predecessors / successors) is a purely a recommendation. Others can comment on whether the ITU has any actual operational role in disseminating time. More fundamental than any operational or standards body is physical reality. It is simply a fact that a day on Earth and on other terrestrial bodies in the solar system means a synodic day, i.e., mean solar time. How that fact is incorporated into standards is a matter for debate, but real world constraints (e.g., the speed of light, Ohm's Law, etc.) apply to all standards. Better communication and clearer roles between the various organizations would likely be welcomed by all. Rob ___ LEAPSECS mailing list LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com https://pairlist6.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
Re: [LEAPSECS] stale leap second information
Hi Rob, On 2015-01-12 06:42 PM, Rob Seaman wrote: On Jan 12, 2015, at 2:53 PM, Martin Burnicki martin.burni...@meinberg.de wrote: I've suggested at various occasions that the IERS should be the authoritative source for a leap second file. There were discussions at both the 2013 and 2011 UTC meetings Which meetings? I mean, what standards body? well-aligned with what Martin says, for both leap second info as well as more general Earth orientation data. One or the other or both are needed under all scenarios. These are the sorts of details that should be hammered out in advance - and it has never seemed controversial among any of the stakeholders that reliable information should be provided in a good format using flexible protocols implemented on scalable hardware with robust network connections. If I understand the provenance, BIPM is responsible for maintaining atomic time and TAI, IERS is responsible maintaining for UT1 and Leap Seconds, and ITU is responsible for time dissemination. Whats not so clear, and it would be reassuring to know, is how the information is officially shared between these bodies and to what degree its automated. If ITU is responsible for time dissemination it would seem like they should also be responsible for time metadata dissemination, ie: Leap Second announcements, history, and related. -Brooks Rob Seaman NOAO ___ LEAPSECS mailing list LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com https://pairlist6.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs ___ LEAPSECS mailing list LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com https://pairlist6.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
Re: [LEAPSECS] stale leap second information
On 2015-01-12 02:03 PM, Tom Van Baak wrote: If would really be good if there was one authoritative soure for this, and that there was a uniform format. Ideally there would be multiple ways to access it, via text and binary for different architectures. The might be thought of as a UTC Metadata API, from which various UTC Metadata Servers could be implemented. -Brooks One authoritative source or one uniform format is asking for trouble. Well, what I meant was, IERS is responsible for the Leap Second decision itself. This information, and its history, (the metadata) has to propagate from that source to all consuming systems through some *official* dissemination channel or channels. An NTP pool style list of leap second servers would be a better idea. Obviously there needs to be redundancy in implementations. You don't want the same format for an OS as you do for an Arduino, or for a compilable piece of software vs. a running binary. That's what I meant - there needs to be multiple ways, appropriate to each architecture or purpose, to obtain the information. So, that's why I suggested it as an API: a clearly defined set of metadata that could be implemented in compatible ways in many forms. As it stands there's lots of ways to get it, none of them in the same form, and none perfectly complete, compatible, authoritative, reliable, or automatic. -Brooks /tvb ___ LEAPSECS mailing list LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com https://pairlist6.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs ___ LEAPSECS mailing list LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com https://pairlist6.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
Re: [LEAPSECS] stale leap second information
The ITU-R is what social scientists call a supranational institution. These are institutions that make recommendations that have a tendency to trump national sovereignty. The manner in which this trumping of national laws occurs is that users tend to follow the supranational recommendation regardless of what their national laws say. The International Meridian Conference of 1884 is a good example. France did not agree with the recommendations of that conference and even passed legislation stating that it did not agree but in its metrology it de facto complied with the recommendations (with the help of the sophistry of stating that its official time was Paris time with an offset that matched the Greenwich meridian). As a supranational technical institution, the ITU-R also plays a peculiar role of turning technical scientific discussions into political debates. It is an institution that has as part of its mission the odd practice of voting on science, and in such voting, it in fact votes on which scientific interests/lobbies are the most important. Since the ITU-R is both scientific and political, one can hope for better communication and clearer roles, but one also gets diplomacy, which often is not about clarity, but, as one of my mentors once described such things, it is about humbuggery and manipulation. Best, Kevin From: LEAPSECS [leapsecs-boun...@leapsecond.com] on behalf of Rob Seaman [sea...@noao.edu] Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2015 9:20 AM To: Leap Second Discussion List Subject: Re: [LEAPSECS] stale leap second information On Jan 13, 2015, at 6:10 AM, Brooks Harris bro...@edlmax.com wrote: On 2015-01-12 06:42 PM, Rob Seaman wrote: On Jan 12, 2015, at 2:53 PM, Martin Burnicki martin.burni...@meinberg.de wrote: I've suggested at various occasions that the IERS should be the authoritative source for a leap second file. There were discussions at both the 2013 and 2011 UTC meetings Which meetings? I mean, what standards body? Institutions other than standards bodies are interested in this issue. See sponsors at the bottom of: http://futureofutc.org The proceedings were published by the American Astronautical Society. If I understand the provenance, BIPM is responsible for maintaining atomic time and TAI, IERS is responsible maintaining for UT1 and Leap Seconds, and ITU is responsible for time dissemination. Whats not so clear, and it would be reassuring to know, is how the information is officially shared between these bodies and to what degree its automated. If ITU is responsible for time dissemination it would seem like they should also be responsible for time metadata dissemination, ie: Leap Second announcements, history, and related. The International Telecommunication Union is a specialized agency of the United Nations. ITU-R TF.460.6 (and predecessors / successors) is a purely a recommendation. Others can comment on whether the ITU has any actual operational role in disseminating time. More fundamental than any operational or standards body is physical reality. It is simply a fact that a day on Earth and on other terrestrial bodies in the solar system means a synodic day, i.e., mean solar time. How that fact is incorporated into standards is a matter for debate, but real world constraints (e.g., the speed of light, Ohm's Law, etc.) apply to all standards. Better communication and clearer roles between the various organizations would likely be welcomed by all. Rob ___ LEAPSECS mailing list LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com https://pairlist6.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs ___ LEAPSECS mailing list LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com https://pairlist6.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
[LEAPSECS] This year's Y2K: 'Leap second' threatens to break the Internet -Brooks
This year's Y2K: 'Leap second' threatens to break the Internet http://money.cnn.com/2015/01/13/technology/leap-second/index.html -Brooks ___ LEAPSECS mailing list LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com https://pairlist6.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
Re: [LEAPSECS] stale leap second information
On 2015-01-13 01:44 PM, Hal Murray wrote: If I understand the provenance, BIPM is responsible for maintaining atomic time and TAI, IERS is responsible maintaining for UT1 and Leap Seconds, and ITU is responsible for time dissemination. Whats not so clear, and it would be reassuring to know, is how the information is officially shared between these bodies and to what degree its automated. I don't think the ITU does any actual dissemination. They don't run any servers or radio transmitters. Right. They are a standards body - ITU-R Radiocommunication Sector (ITU-R) Our mission is to ensure the rational, equitable, efficient and economical use of the radio-frequency spectrum by all radiocommunication services, including those using satellite orbits, and to carry out studies and approve Recommendations on radiocommunication matters. http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-R/Pages/default.aspx I picture the ITU as a level higher than that. They coordinate things like We all agree to use leap seconds .. the way Rec 460 says ITU-R Recommendation TF.460 Rec. ITU-R TF.460-6, Standard-frequency and time-signal emissions http://www.itu.int/rec/R-REC-TF.460/en and BIPM will figure out when they happen. The IERS will figure out when they happen. IERSInternational Earth Rotation and Reference Systems Service The primary objectives of the IERS are to serve the astronomical, geodetic and geophysical communities by providing data and standards related to Earth rotation and reference frames. http://www.iers.org/nn_10880/IERS/EN/Organization/About/about.html?__nnn=true -Brooks ___ LEAPSECS mailing list LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com https://pairlist6.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
