Re: Predictable Internet Time

[Joe Touch <[e-mail]>]

Hi, all,

Again, this discussion is continuing over in ART at the advice of the IESG.

I'll post followups there.

Joe


On 4/18/2017 4:21 PM, Toerless Eckert wrote:
> Nice!
>
> Why not start to tackle the problem pragmatically before asking for standards
> when its clearly a political issue.
>
> a) RFC describing the problems developers and system deployments can face
>   because of leap seconds.
> b) And best current practices to get around those issues. Eg: Expect clock
>   smear on Jan 1 == reduced accuracy of ~1. Unless OS or other trusted
>   info source gives explicit indication: NO leap, no smear.
> c) And finally a description of the worst open issues when b) is applied.
>    Anything worse than labels on products "reduced functionality on Jan 1
>    after a leap second" ?
>
> Cheers
>     Toerless
>
> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 05:20:06PM -0500, Nico Williams wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 03, 2017 at 05:34:11PM -0500, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
>>> As I said, I want 30-100 years lead time so I can bake the schedule into
>>> devices and remove a trust dependency.
>> 30 years' lead time for leap seconds?  Can't be done.
>>
>> Leap seconds depend on events such as earthquakes.
>>
>> You can estimate their frequency, but you can't estimate when they'll be
>> inserted.
>>
>> Nico
>> --