Re: Monitoring the leap second tonight
- From: n06W03+mgk25@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Markus Kuhn)
- Date: 20 Jan 2006 14:03:44 GMT
Ulrich Windl <Ulrich.Windl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
|> > Sun Jan 1 00:59:57 CET 2006
|> > Sun Jan 1 00:59:58 CET 2006
|> > Sun Jan 1 00:59:59 CET 2006
|> > Sun Jan 1 00:59:59 CET 2006 <=== leap second occured
|>
|> Shouldn't the output have been "Sun Jan 1 00:59:60 CET 2006"?
IMHO, there are pretty strong arguments that attempting to implement a UTC
leap this way (i.e., showing the 60 or even repeating the 59) on a computer
clock could be called an undesireable and potentially disruptive engineering
practice. Remember that ITU-R TF.460 was written for pulse-per-second
timecodes, where this makes sense, and not for operating system APIs,
network protocols, etc.
I think, the ITU-R TF.460 idea of a second labeled 60 should not be
implemented in these areas without very careful thinking about the
consequences. There are much less troublesome conventions possible
for performing the 1-second UTC adjustment in a computer clock:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-kuhn-leapsecond-00.txt
Markus
--
Markus Kuhn, Computer Laboratory, University of Cambridge
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/ || CB3 0FD, Great Britain
.
- References:
- Re: Monitoring the leap second tonight
- From: mike
- Re: Monitoring the leap second tonight
- From: Ulrich Windl
- Re: Monitoring the leap second tonight
- Prev by Date: Re: What went wrong with the leap second
- Next by Date: Meanings of states from ntpq -c rv
- Previous by thread: Re: Monitoring the leap second tonight
- Next by thread: Re: Monitoring the leap second tonight
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|