Re: [Ntp] Leap second draft

Steve Allen <sla@ucolick.org> Sat, 30 March 2019 23:01 UTC

Return-Path: <sla@ucolick.org>
X-Original-To: ntp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ntp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66898120323 for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 30 Mar 2019 16:01:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 AfM7ZpvFbSG9 for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 30 Mar 2019 16:01:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.ucolick.org (zilan.ucolick.org [128.114.23.234]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9F7F012031E for <ntp@ietf.org>; Sat, 30 Mar 2019 16:01:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.ucolick.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.ucolick.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AACD529D0 for <ntp@ietf.org>; Sat, 30 Mar 2019 16:01:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from geneva.ucolick.org (geneva.ucolick.org [128.114.23.183]) by smtp.ucolick.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7CB3298F for <ntp@ietf.org>; Sat, 30 Mar 2019 16:01:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from geneva.ucolick.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by geneva.ucolick.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E76928A for <ntp@ietf.org>; Sat, 30 Mar 2019 16:01:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from sla@localhost) by geneva.ucolick.org (8.14.7/8.14.7/Submit) id x2UN1pQK011666 for ntp@ietf.org; Sat, 30 Mar 2019 16:01:51 -0700
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2019 16:01:51 -0700
From: Steve Allen <sla@ucolick.org>
To: NTP WG <ntp@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20190330230151.GA10362@ucolick.org>
References: <CAJm83bD5Ozkpg5TpkogOW6xeeNQL3ZziLO9URM7haqN8Wrp=Wg@mail.gmail.com> <CAJm83bCbVzO3NNCbjTy+O_16T7DBeA7O6018WWGu_-GyuN-8UA@mail.gmail.com> <20190330045928.GA31550@ucolick.org> <20190330133348.GA20646@ucolick.org> <20190330152948.GI7706@roeckx.be> <CANCZdfo57thjq_r41vL_XyczLyW18YFineOptfTbhES4Q4Xpyw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CANCZdfo57thjq_r41vL_XyczLyW18YFineOptfTbhES4Q4Xpyw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.2 (2017-12-15)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ntp/oC-fyRlEP-eZiYum_2T5iG9seLc>
Subject: Re: [Ntp] Leap second draft
X-BeenThere: ntp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ntp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ntp>, <mailto:ntp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ntp/>
List-Post: <mailto:ntp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ntp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ntp>, <mailto:ntp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2019 23:01:56 -0000

On Sat 2019-03-30T09:42:38-0600 Warner Losh hath writ:
> We definitely need that it was exactly 10s in 1972, as opposed to 0. And we
> need statements that things were messy before 1972. This information is
> 'out there' but hard to find and difficult to properly interpret.

Due to ongoing activities like the CGPM meeting last November
specifying things like "9,192,631,770" become obsolete in less than 8
weeks.  For the same reason saying that TAI is like TT risks
obsolescence because of changes in the notion of the geoid, or the
standard geopotential, or some other tweak to the external definition
like the ones that have been made by one or more of IAG, IAU, or CGPM.

The lifetime of an IETF document may be improved by limiting the
amount of reiteration.  Do describe the important and presumed
unchanging properties of the external definition so that if changes
happen in the future the readers can make a judgement about whether to
abandon the existing implementation or ignore the new external
definition.  Then rely on simply citing which external agencies are in
charge of external definitions that are being used by NTP.

Unfortunately for this origins of this subject matter the principals
who were involved with the inception of leap seconds were not happy
with the result.  The contributions to the CCDS meeting of 1972 show
they had decided not to use UTC with leap seconds in their own
systems, they believed that others would be best doing likewise, and
they agreed not to talk about it outside of the folks who had been at
the meetings which resulted in leap seconds.  Their silence left the
story to be told without explanation of reasons and motivations; thus
it became hard to find and interpret.

--
Steve Allen                    <sla@ucolick.org>              WGS-84 (GPS)
UCO/Lick Observatory--ISB 260  Natural Sciences II, Room 165  Lat  +36.99855
1156 High Street               Voice: +1 831 459 3046         Lng -122.06015
Santa Cruz, CA 95064           https://www.ucolick.org/~sla/  Hgt +250 m