In message <0F4A5F0D-4B8B-49B1-870B-313C1C70FA18_at_noao.edu>, Rob Seaman writes:
>The reality is that the ITU-R "specification" is just a minor
>footnote pertaining to obsolete technologies of time signal
>transport. One presumes nothing would stop the IERS from
>publishing any scheduling algorithm such as you describe.
Actually, since ITU is an UN institution and IERS is not, decisions
made by former will take legal precedence over decisions made by
the latter in most countries.
>The specification might benefit from dedicated IETF blessed
IETF is not really relevant here, POSIX is, and that takes us into
ISO territory, which means YAIO (yet another international organization)
which also doesn't have a real mandate. (ISO standards only take
effect if the national Standards Institutes bless/ratify/translate
them.)
>Actually - one presumes the IERS currently has the authority to
>do both of these things. Have never heard anyone suggest that
>the next two leap seconds might not be announced simultaneously.
>And the ITU-R has already signed off on the monthly scheduling
>of leap seconds - this is the law of the land.
>
>What precisely is stopping us from implementing some variation
>of Steve's scheduling algorithm right now, today, this minute?
>
>All in favor, say aye!
aye!
--
Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk_at_FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Received on Fri Apr 14 2006 - 10:47:59 PDT