On Feb 7, 2012, at 11:03 , Tony Finch wrote:
Actually TAI depends a lot on relativity as well as quantum physics. For
example, it is supposed to match the rate of the SI second on the geoid
(which is roughly mean sea level). NIST's lab in Colorado is about a mile
high, so they have to apply
On Feb 7, 2012, at 2:12 59PM, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Tuesday, February 07, 2012 10:45 -0800 james woodyatt
j...@apple.com wrote:
...
TAI has a fairly stable foundation in non-relativistic
physics, which experience has shown to be somewhat resistant
to the power of political
On 2012-02-09 10:41, Steven Bellovin wrote:
On Feb 7, 2012, at 2:12 59PM, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Tuesday, February 07, 2012 10:45 -0800 james woodyatt
j...@apple.com wrote:
...
TAI has a fairly stable foundation in non-relativistic
physics, which experience has shown to be somewhat
On Jan 23, 2012, at 10:03 , Marshall Eubanks wrote:
And, of course, this is also orthogonal to the problem at hand, as UTC, GPS
time, TT, all also experience from the same issues, and it has nothing to do
with leap seconds.
A point in favor of deriving the Internet time scale directly
james woodyatt j...@apple.com wrote:
TAI has a fairly stable foundation in non-relativistic physics, which
experience has shown to be somewhat resistant to the power of political
bodies to modify at will,
Actually TAI depends a lot on relativity as well as quantum physics. For
example, it is
--On Tuesday, February 07, 2012 10:45 -0800 james woodyatt
j...@apple.com wrote:
...
TAI has a fairly stable foundation in non-relativistic
physics, which experience has shown to be somewhat resistant
to the power of political bodies to modify at will, so it
should be good enough for most
The solution is simple - move to TAI. That is the _true_ time, what
the master clocks actually keep. UTC is just a variant for creatures
living on the surface of the Earth.
Being one of those creatures, I voted for keeping leap seconds. UTC
seems to fit the global Internet quite nicely,
On 1/23/12 3:27 AM, Michael Richardson wrote:
Eliot == Eliot Lear l...@cisco.com writes:
Can you tell me which protocols use future timestamps in an
moving form (not stored at rest in a certificate in a DANE RR,
for instance), which care about discrepancies of less than 1
Clint Chaplin clint.chap...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 10:04 AM, Ofer Inbar c...@a.org wrote:
If the main problem with leap seconds is their future
unpredictability, isn't there a compromise option between the status
quo and no more leap seconds? Couldn't they come up
Just curious, but I've often used the formulation:
day = (now - now % 86400)
where now is the output of gmtime() of equivalent to calculate the number
of days since the epoch.
How is this affected (or not) by the presence of leap seconds, and/or any
proposal to remove them.
Ray
Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote:
Time is and always will be an arbitrary measurement scheme, and the only
thing that makes sense for the Internet is to use the same arbitrary
scheme as everybody else. We just have to suck up the resulting
inconveniences, as GPS has to. It
Ray Bellis ray.bel...@nominet.org.uk wrote:
day = (now - now % 86400)
where now is the output of gmtime() of equivalent to calculate the
number of days since the epoch.
How is this affected (or not) by the presence of leap seconds, and/or
any proposal to remove them.
It is not
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 4:52 AM, Alessandro Vesely ves...@tana.it wrote:
The solution is simple - move to TAI. That is the _true_ time, what
the master clocks actually keep. UTC is just a variant for creatures
living on the surface of the Earth.
Being one of those creatures, I voted for
On 1/20/12 7:13 PM, Michael Richardson wrote:
Can you tell me which protocols use future timestamps in an moving
form (not stored at rest in a certificate in a DANE RR, for instance),
which care about discrepancies of less than 1 minute?
iCal, for one, which can be used for recurring events
On 1/20/2012 7:13 AM, Tim Bray wrote:
One consequence of your proposal, if adopted, is that there will need
to be a specification of the canonical Internet-time-to-Sidereal-time
function,
No actually there isn't such a need Tim. Its one of the problems we face
here in the timekeeping world.
Eliot == Eliot Lear l...@cisco.com writes:
Can you tell me which protocols use future timestamps in an
moving form (not stored at rest in a certificate in a DANE RR,
for instance), which care about discrepancies of less than 1
minute?
Eliot iCal, for one, which can be
If we are ever going to get a handle on Internet time we need to get rid of
the arbitrary correction factors introduced by leap seconds.
The problems caused by leap seconds are that they make it impossible for
two machines to know if they are referring to the same point in future time
and quite
Phillip,
On 20/01/2012 14:20, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
If we are ever going to get a handle on Internet time we need to get rid of
the arbitrary correction factors introduced by leap seconds.
Your arguments in favour of abolishing leap seconds are all good. But can
you please do us all a
Hi Phillip,
For those who are interested in the proceedings, they took place
yesterday at the ITU's Radio Advisory Group (RAG). The United States
introduced the proposal to do away with leap seconds. They were not,
shall we say, universally supported. Those in favor were largely in
line with
One consequence of your proposal, if adopted, is that there will need
to be a specification of the canonical Internet-time-to-Sidereal-time
function, so that in the long run, the time that your computer says it
is will correspond with what you observe looking out the window. The
Internet will be
Nick Hilliard n...@inex.ie wrote:
Your arguments in favour of abolishing leap seconds are all good. But can
you please do us all a favour and provide a similarly lucid list of reasons
that an apologist would use to say that leap seconds should be kept.
I agree that leap seconds are a
The solution is simple - move to TAI. That is the _true_ time, what
the master clocks actually keep. UTC is just a variant for creatures
living on the surface of the Earth.
On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 9:20 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker hal...@gmail.com wrote:
If we are ever going to get a handle on
On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 10:13 AM, Tim Bray tb...@textuality.com wrote:
One consequence of your proposal, if adopted, is that there will need
to be a specification of the canonical Internet-time-to-Sidereal-time
function, so that in the long run, the time that your computer says it
is will
On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 10:13 AM, Tony Finch d...@dotat.at wrote:
Nick Hilliard n...@inex.ie wrote:
Your arguments in favour of abolishing leap seconds are all good. But can
you please do us all a favour and provide a similarly lucid list of reasons
that an apologist would use to say that
Nick Hilliard n...@inex.ie wrote:
Abolishing leap seconds kicks the can down the road as far as this is
concerned. And while it's tempting to push this sort of decision down
on future generations, they're not going to love us for it in a couple
of hundred years if they need to adjust by an
Marshall Eubanks marshall.euba...@gmail.com wrote:
My actual proposal, if I were to make one, would be to keep UTC, but to
make TAI Internet time and try and move most electronic things to TAI,
keeping UTC only for civil time.
This doesn't actually fix the problems that Phill listed, and it
On 20/01/2012 15:49, Tony Finch wrote:
No, a timezone change (or rather a series of timezone changes) doesn't
affect the relationship between UTC and TAI. The changes don't even need
global co-ordination.
you could deal with this using TZ changes, but that's turning it into
someone else's
Nick Hilliard n...@inex.ie wrote:
you could deal with this using TZ changes, but that's turning it into
someone else's problem. Not so much kicking the can down the road as
pushing the problem up the political stack (not particularly wanting to mix
metaphors). And fixing the problem at a
If the main problem with leap seconds is their future
unpredictability, isn't there a compromise option between the status
quo and no more leap seconds? Couldn't they come up with a fixed
schedule for leap seconds for many centuries at a time, based on
current predictions of approximately how
Phillip == Phillip Hallam-Baker hal...@gmail.com writes:
Phillip If we are ever going to get a handle on Internet time we
Phillip need to get rid of the arbitrary correction factors
Phillip introduced by leap seconds.
Phillip The problems caused by leap seconds are that they
On Jan 20, 2012, at 1:04 PM, Ofer Inbar wrote:
If the main problem with leap seconds is their future
unpredictability, isn't there a compromise option between the status
quo and no more leap seconds? Couldn't they come up with a fixed
schedule for leap seconds for many centuries at a time,
On 1/20/2012 10:13 AM, Michael Richardson wrote:
Phillip == Phillip Hallam-Baker hal...@gmail.com writes:
Phillip If we are ever going to get a handle on Internet time we
Phillip need to get rid of the arbitrary correction factors
Phillip introduced by leap seconds.
The earth's rate of rotation is not uniform, and the rate of change of
that rotation is not uniform, either. For instance, I believe, one of
the major earthquakes recently caused a change in the earth's rotation
because of conservation of angular momentum. ice cap melting may
cause similar
Hi -
From: Michael Richardson m...@sandelman.ca
To: Phillip Hallam-Baker hal...@gmail.com
Cc: IETF Discussion Mailing List ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2012 10:13 AM
Subject: Re: ITC copped out on UTC again
...
Can you tell me which protocols use future timestamps in an moving
On 2012-01-21 03:20, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
If we are ever going to get a handle on Internet time we need to get rid of
the arbitrary correction factors introduced by leap seconds.
Time is and always will be an arbitrary measurement scheme, and the only
thing that makes sense for the
If I was designing a protocol from scratch that required accurate time, I
would indeed use TAI. In fact I am planning to do exactly that.
The problem here is fear of the unknown. A small clique that has a very
narrow set of interests (and not ones I find very important) has by
tradition and
Brian,
On Jan 20, 2012, at 11:26 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2012-01-21 03:20, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
If we are ever going to get a handle on Internet time we need to get rid of
the arbitrary correction factors introduced by leap seconds.
Time is and always will be an arbitrary
On 1/20/12 5:20 PM, Bob Hinden wrote:
Alternatively we could revert to the Julian (365.25 day) calendar, which
was considerably more convenient for programmers, or perhaps to one of the
old Iranian (360 day) calendars, which are convenient in some ways but do
require occasional leap months.
38 matches
Mail list logo
