Re: Predictable Internet Time

Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> Tue, 03 January 2017 20:02 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@isi.edu>
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 CA04D129B61 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Jan 2017 12:02:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, 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 9cXOVySeoq2g for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Jan 2017 12:02:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from vapor.isi.edu (vapor.isi.edu [128.9.64.64]) (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 9E50B129B33 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Jan 2017 12:02:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [128.9.160.211] (mul.isi.edu [128.9.160.211]) (authenticated bits=0) by vapor.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id v03K1bUI024398 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Tue, 3 Jan 2017 12:01:38 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Predictable Internet Time
To: Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>, Eliot Lear <lear@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> <CAMm+LwjSPnimVYmF0WmKT0zNxETt53fxVM+7D+Q2Rmi7nPFsHw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
Message-ID: <dd90490e-e6d8-5c91-56bc-7a7908cfd2fd@isi.edu>
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2017 12:01:37 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAMm+LwjSPnimVYmF0WmKT0zNxETt53fxVM+7D+Q2Rmi7nPFsHw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------F5ADA5EE50F734FFB2D99531"
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/M5xh29F8UoPbDx3hYGNFVNtqeO0>
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 20:02:05 -0000

You might consider that most governments have already agreed to
cooperate - by contributing their national clock info to TAI, accepting
the TAI-averaged result, and accepting the ITU's definition of UTC.

I see no good reason to create a new time reference that would still
ultimately need translation to TAI and UTC anyway, esp. given the
translation would be complex on the smear-day.

Joe


On 1/3/2017 11:46 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 2:03 PM, Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com
> <mailto: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.
>
>     Eliot
>
>
> ​My analysis of the politics of the situation is as follows
>
> * The decision makers are the governments, not the ITU
>
> *​ The governments will do whatever their banking and broadcast
> sectors tell them.
>
> * The banking and broadcast sections will do whatever Microsoft,
> Google, Apple, etc agree on provided that the transition is not going
> to be more of a problem than the status quo.
>
> ​* If ​there is a non ITU proposal on the table that threatens to
> replace ITU as the place where the decision is taken that stands a
> chance of being adopted, ITU will prefer to co-opt it rather than lose
> the appearance of control.
>
>
> We already have UT0, UT1 and UT2 and several other variants. The
> mapping from UT1 to UTC can be varied by committee.
>
>