Re: [art] summary of updates - draft-time-touch

[Joe Touch <[e-mail]>]

On 4/18/2017 11:14 AM, Dale R. Worley wrote:
> (BTW, "draft-time-touch" in the subject line is incorrect!  I made it
> hard for me to find your message again.)

Sorry - not enough coffee...

The next version will be draft-touch-art-time, keeping with the
convention that also includes the intended WG of interest...

> I was thinking again...  What is the purpose of this draft? 

I tried to indicate that in the abstract/intro.

It originated in response to two different threads on "hey, the IETF
should standardize some new time scale" - one to be purely monotonic and
the other to standardize Google-like leapsecond smear.

The point of the doc is to encourage people to use existing solutions
and not believe there's a shortcut that gets around needing to know/deal
with leap seconds, time zones, and coordination.

>  It seems to
> me (having only skimmed it) that the essence is the seven
> recommendations given at the end of the Introduction.  But a lot of the
> text is taken up with assessing various existing time scales in details
> which aren't directly relevant to the recommendations. 
Yeah - that's intended to be background.

>  If you pared
> down the draft to what is needed to support the recommendations (and
> possibly the task of assisting the designer to choose a good primary
> time scale for an application), how much complexity would be avoided?
I'm open to suggestions on how far back to pull that background.

The reason for including it is to have the doc be somewhat
self-contained in justifying the recommendations.

Joe