On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 10:16 AM, Matsakis, Demetrios N CIV NAVOBSY, N3TS <
demetrios.matsa...@navy.mil> wrote:
> I was surprised to find phrases in the Lick web pages: "CCIR ignored the
> advice that astronomers " and "squelched astronomers who insisted that leap
> seconds would cause trouble".
On 2018-03-16 03:41 PM, Brooks Harris wrote:
On 2018-03-16 01:18 PM, Rob Seaman wrote:
Meanwhile, over the past week or two I have not been able to connect
to NIST's UT1 server:
https://www.nist.gov/pml/time-and-frequency-division/time-services/ut1-ntp-time-dissemination
My SNTP
On 2018-03-16 01:18 PM, Rob Seaman wrote:
Meanwhile, over the past week or two I have not been able to connect
to NIST's UT1 server:
https://www.nist.gov/pml/time-and-frequency-division/time-services/ut1-ntp-time-dissemination
My SNTP implementation reaches Judah's UT1 server today as
I regularly monitor the NIST public NTP servers including the UT1 server.
ut1-time.colorado.edu reachability was good for the past 10 weeks, though
the server was briefly in alarm on January 22 and March 10. I can supply
details off-list.
NTP traffic is subject to Internet delay and loss that
Hi all,
Regarding Demetrios's response to Steve: did astronomers give advice
divergent to what CCIR decided?It isn't obvious how the history of this
rather typical, if somewhat esoteric, technical debate amounts to
"strong emotional bias". I reject the implication that technical
disagreements, at
I was surprised to find phrases in the Lick web pages: "CCIR ignored the
advice that astronomers " and "squelched astronomers who insisted that leap
seconds would cause trouble".
I realize their author is not the only person with a strong emotional bias, but
even so I question the tone of
