Re: Predictable Internet Time

Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at> Tue, 03 January 2017 20:34 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 6DF601296EC for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Jan 2017 12:34:51 -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 w3m7hHRu9pgZ for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Jan 2017 12:34:50 -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 E06B8129637 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Jan 2017 12:34:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.internal [10.202.2.44]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AD1920DAD; Tue, 3 Jan 2017 15:34:49 -0500 (EST)
Received: from web1 ([10.202.2.211]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 03 Jan 2017 15:34:49 -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=79 5084sdwQi1BW0gPS9pGnvfqGQ=; b=FOfeDXyTdb0yNiHAEtzs4z0+lhFlRnIdhr z4R63GeSHZNPN7Wj4kWBdPExM8sroE8QqJwoHx7oNUg6qCHiE4WXgGRv1yz8ksv/ ZEY4o4D7DzsO2rgp9/hka422HPww7j8Nk/t5DwQudkprU1+Vl18pQIrHiuBvvJ4C daxuXbzTk=
X-ME-Sender: <xms:6QpsWAQ82IFDrXciz-GXU3BI1nRhOK3mqwv1oNQIixuszuhNcSvzjg>
Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 99) id 1A726AA6C5; Tue, 3 Jan 2017 15:34:49 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <1483475689.1348946.836323865.09305276@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="_----------=_148347568913489461"
X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface - ajax-9c115fcf
Subject: Re: Predictable Internet Time
Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2017 20:34:49 +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>
In-Reply-To: <f94415b6-d9f7-0a03-cf5b-ce39c109aa71@isi.edu>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/Qx84haSOdjH-EuPFOZF3Eo4qcEU>
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: Tue, 03 Jan 2017 20:34:51 -0000


Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>; wrote:

> We really need to separate the frames of reference of time -
> there's no
> need for smear for internal "seconds since epoch" time.



Well, the problem is that "seconds since the epoch" is not a count of
UTC seconds, it is a mapping from broken-down time to a linear time, and
the mapping is defined in a way that requires 86400 seconds per day and
does not accommodate leap seconds.


http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/basedefs/V1_chap04.html#tag_04_16


Leap smear exists mainly because "seconds since the epoch" does not
allow for leap seconds.


Tony.

--

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