IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Predictable Internet Time

Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at> Wed, 04 January 2017 00:13 UTC

Return-Path: <dot@dotat.at>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4BEB1294DD for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Jan 2017 16:13:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.619
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.619 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com
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 Qa23n9fY4I6W for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Jan 2017 16:13:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out2-smtp.messagingengine.com (out2-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.26]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5B0251270B4 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Jan 2017 16:13:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.internal [10.202.2.44]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id B38B920E01; Tue, 3 Jan 2017 19:13:56 -0500 (EST)
Received: from web1 ([10.202.2.211]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 03 Jan 2017 19:13:56 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=smtpout; bh=+2 yiH45tol3AFfQxnJty/3Zg7wY=; b=OISo+GjUXFt5WI9itFynr3B0r6lSnTG8Cl /VrGXN5Q/K8xxenIwd1LO0ObnEPuz39fXE4HUZOPiT8XlhTqtugPayUBaPHrDYba 1CXvqlL+Hf8WKi5EpTQWSFPI0jxehI0svLs7onBl1F6FPBhobeoWnc/Q+HyLCr6z x1RkWc0Gw=
X-ME-Sender: <xms:RD5sWM1flaE68LOPoUgCzATI3ynzxbv2a5FpIRpiY_JpiazBXRhVjg>
Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 99) id 9412DAA6C5; Tue, 3 Jan 2017 19:13:56 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <1483488836.1397675.836530745.4A4F8676@webmail.messagingengine.com>
From: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>
To: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_----------=_148348883613976750"
X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface - ajax-9c115fcf
Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2017 00:13:56 +0000
References: <CAMm+LwgfQJ8aG5wB=d3fRbbeje3J9o7Z4_DCuP8DL88ouDeKzw@mail.gmail.com> <504e2cea0d1668c31486b05fec0a967a4446aefe@webmail.weijax.net> <CAMm+Lwi_jU6gjdtdM6a2n_9_89tUvWBNXxnMtSjTEA++h1D4Ew@mail.gmail.com> <e0a43370-751f-808c-3719-9716f9cd57d1@isi.edu> <alpine.DEB.2.11.1701031348430.7102@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk> <f94415b6-d9f7-0a03-cf5b-ce39c109aa71@isi.edu> <1483475689.1348946.836323865.09305276@webmail.messagingengine.com> <94226b19-4690-ee8e-526e-04cc54e97b8e@isi.edu> <1483482794.1375510.836410009.6D0F7910@webmail.messagingengine.com> <fef56705-3037-eb92-b804-4aa43326a654@isi.edu> <1483485260.1384841.836469129.669D4C7B@webmail.messagingengine.com> <ad31b4f2-7104-d951-3f5b-81cbfc83b118@isi.edu> <1483488021.1394874.836501673.12EE46CD@webmail.messagingengine.com> <f333bf8a-2261-5441-6484-d8c3eec9514f@isi.edu>
In-Reply-To: <f333bf8a-2261-5441-6484-d8c3eec9514f@isi.edu>
Subject: Re: Predictable Internet Time
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/-84ejR3_8A9aovg7-rlIa7itfUg>
Cc: Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>, IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2017 00:13:59 -0000


Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> wrote:

>

> You're right; I got it backwards. Except it admits it's an
> approximation:
> "A value that approximates the number of seconds that have
> elapsed since
> the Epoch."



Thank you :-)



This kind of confusion is why leap seconds don't work in practice.



> However, when you are computing epoch time from UTC, you'd have to

> account for the leap seconds since epoch to correct for the difference
> in actual elapsed seconds.



POSIX and NTP say you aren't allowed to account for leap seconds when
computing seconds since the epoch from UTC.


Tony.

--

f.anthony.n.finch  <dot@dotat.at>  http://dotat.at/  -  I xn--
  zr8h punycode

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email