Re: Predictable Internet Time

[Joe Touch <[e-mail]>]

On 1/3/2017 4:13 PM, Tony Finch wrote:
>
> Joe Touch <[e-mail]> 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.

No, it's just why Unix cannot compute the time since epoch without the
table of leap seconds.

Nobody said that keeping accurate time wouldn't require external
information.
>
> > 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.

Then they're both wrong. What do you want me to say?

We've understood the concept of local frames of time since the 1920s (or
should have). All we need to do is get our specs in line with reality.
Note that GPS does it right - it indicates time since an epoch and has
to be corrected to convert to UTC, and includes the delta to UTC in its
announcements.

Joe