Re: Predictable Internet Time

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Tue, 03 January 2017 19:25 UTC

Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.com>
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 8EB2912943A for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Jan 2017 11:25:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.1] 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 K-YSWk6jXzKK for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Jan 2017 11:25:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (bsa2.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7747D129A98 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Jan 2017 11:25:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [198.252.137.70] (helo=PSB) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1cOUhb-0002Df-9q; Tue, 03 Jan 2017 14:24:55 -0500
Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2017 14:24:48 -0500
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>, Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>
Subject: Re: Predictable Internet Time
Message-ID: <FB615B078F9C5F96FD26CFBE@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <9cc49e0a-1aac-67e0-f198-4e0673340394@cisco.com>
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> <CAMm+Lwg8UzhyqNBrsxNb_8uFLCrL-iqpjPGwfycmvPEOcuE8LA@mail.gmail.com> <9cc49e0a-1aac-67e0-f198-4e0673340394@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.70
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/Cuw_jcH20A4P1FkzbQxeyWg6Urk>
Cc: 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: Tue, 03 Jan 2017 19:25:03 -0000


--On Tuesday, January 3, 2017 20:03 +0100 Eliot Lear
<lear@cisco.com>; wrote:

> On 1/3/17 7:24 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
>> Umm, my proposal was to ignore the opinion of the ITU in this
>> matter as in everything else.
> 
> That doesn't work in all cases because there are often
> applications that require that the clock time on a device not
> vary from UTC by some set amount.  I think they're fixing for
> a big UTC leap second shindig in the next few years, anyway.

Also, FWIW, UTC is a CCIR/ITU-R specification, not an ITU-T one.
If one wanted to claim that we ignore the opinion of the latter,
it would still be hyperbole, but perhaps understandable.  If we
were to start ignoring ITU-$ recommendations, a good deal of our
Layer 1 and 2 infrastructure would stop working.  I assume that
is not considered a desirable outcome independent of the
discussions we are having about time.

   john