IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [art] Predictable Internet Time

Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> Wed, 29 March 2017 14:36 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@isi.edu>
X-Original-To: art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 983941242EA for <art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 07:36:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id B58var9dlcPA for <art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 07:36:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from boreas.isi.edu (boreas.isi.edu [128.9.160.161]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4A9F2124D37 for <art@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 07:36:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.189] (cpe-172-250-240-132.socal.res.rr.com [172.250.240.132]) (authenticated bits=0) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id v2TEa091015639 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Wed, 29 Mar 2017 07:36:01 -0700 (PDT)
To: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
References: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1701031348430.7102@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk> <f94415b6-d9f7-0a03-cf5b-ce39c109aa71@isi.edu> <f9429571-b9d5-75d4-9b46-b877a189a7bf@gmail.com> <20170328173916.GE7490@localhost> <e73d5c15-1ba3-8162-f7df-555e2e8588a6@isi.edu> <20170328224041.GJ7490@localhost> <9ddcde60-a915-a03d-dfc3-2c2c451c398c@isi.edu> <20170329000601.GK7490@localhost> <96ad09b7-7dc2-20e8-2aa4-793310d184f6@isi.edu> <20170329015811.GL7490@localhost> <20170329025808.GM7490@localhost>
Cc: art@ietf.org
From: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
Message-ID: <9440a2e3-3415-335f-10b0-ae7d5f42f1a9@isi.edu>
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 07:35:59 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20170329025808.GM7490@localhost>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------D5B2CE16C54F2026B4170BA8"
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/jNAUEUAMMz5O-EOR7iJ2wzb_Yec>
Subject: Re: [art] Predictable Internet Time
X-BeenThere: art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Applications and Real-Time Area Discussion <art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/art>, <mailto:art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/art/>
List-Post: <mailto:art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/art>, <mailto:art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 14:36:47 -0000


On 3/28/2017 7:58 PM, Nico Williams wrote:
>> POSIX does NOT define seconds in terms of days!  It does the opposite:
> Although I can see how to waterboard the spec to get either answer.  If
> it were right about POSIX time being UTC (which it's not in practice),
> then you'd be quite right about it defining seconds in terms of days...
>
> Would that make POSIX a smeared time standard?  Sure seems that way!
POSIX never claims that its "days" sync to UTC, UT, or TAI days. As
such, there's no smearing assumed.

Joe

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email