Re: [LEAPSECS] WRC Final Acts
In message <56645275.3090...@yahoo.com>, "Michael.Deckers. via LEAPSECS" writes: >On 2015-12-06 12:26, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote about computer science >organizations: > >> There is nothing notable about that: There are no such ITU-compatible >> organizations they could work with. > >Isn't IFIP sufficiently international? It's not a question about being "sufficiently international" its a question of being an organization composed of official government representatives. -- 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] WRC Final Acts
On 2015-12-06 12:26, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote about computer science organizations: There is nothing notable about that: There are no such ITU-compatible organizations they could work with. Isn't IFIP sufficiently international? Michael Deckers. ___ LEAPSECS mailing list LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com https://pairlist6.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
Re: [LEAPSECS] WRC Final Acts
In message <20151205212640.ga25...@ucolick.org>, Steve Allen writes: >In the mean time there should be more studies involving >the alphabet soup of agencies IMO, ICAO, CGPM, CIPM, BIPM, IERS, IUGG, >URSI, ISO, WMO and IAU. > >That list of agencies is notable in that none of those are involved in >defining standards for computing systems. There is nothing notable about that: There are no such ITU-compatible organizations they could work with. ITU being a UN treaty organization, it is a organization focused on governmental interests, and it has always had extreme reluctance, bordering on open hostility, to working with non treaty-based and non-governmental organizations. Most people forget that the OSI protocols originally started in ITU (Then: CCITT) as "The Intelligent Network". ITU's inability and unwillingness to talk to anybody but UN member governments and their "tele-administrations" made IT vendors grab a copy, stuff it into ISO, and take it from there. ITU pretended that didn't happen until their "legitimate participants", in this case the NATO governments, took a copy of the ISO work and stuffed it back into ITU, in order to synchronize the text of the standards. They barely finished before it all became utterly irellevant for ever. Other notable skirmishes was the X2/V.Last/V.90/V.92 charade, where again ITU pretended nothing happened above V.34 spees, until governments finally had enough and dragged PCM based modems there. The existence of the Internet, based on the RFC standards, have only caused very minor concessions from ITU: They're willing to reference RFC's as normative, but there is no coorporation or colaboration of any kind between ITU and IETF. It's not like the ITU memberstates could not change this if they wanted to, the control the charter, but to my knowledge, nothing of that sort has ever had a smidgen of support. The closest you can find which could bridge the gap from the computer industry to ITU would be ISO, which *could* become a UN treaty organization if they wanted to, but which have repeatedly refused to do so, because they no less pompous asses than ITU. Poul-Henning -- 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
[LEAPSECS] WRC Final Acts
As pointed out by the IEEE reporter in http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/telecom/standards/the-eight-year-leap-second-delay-might-not-be-as-bad-as-it-seems The Provisional Final Acts of WRC-15 are visible at http://www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-r/opb/act/R-ACT-WRC.11-2015-PDF-E.pdf These include => MOD to Radio Regulation 1.14 Page 1 has the new text on the meaning of Coordinated Universal Time. => MOD to Radio Regulation 2.5 Page 2 has the new text on the meaning of calendar dates. => Resolution COM5/1 (WRC-15) Definition of time scale and dissemination of time signals via radiocommunication systems Starting on page 357 is three pages of bureaucratese saying that UTC remains equivalent to mean solar time or GMT and shall stay that way until 2023. In the mean time there should be more studies involving the alphabet soup of agencies IMO, ICAO, CGPM, CIPM, BIPM, IERS, IUGG, URSI, ISO, WMO and IAU. That list of agencies is notable in that none of those are involved in defining standards for computing systems. That is incongruent with repeated assertions that the suppression of the leap second is needed for the sake of computing systems. It remains unclear how the ITU-R can move toward a resolution of this issue. -- Steve AllenWGS-84 (GPS) UCO/Lick Observatory--ISB Natural Sciences II, Room 165 Lat +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