Tony Finch wrote:
> As http://www.eecis.udel.edu/~mills/leap.html shows, NTP (with kernel
> support) is designed to stop the clock over the leap second, which I
> don't call "correct". Without kernel support it behaves like a
> "pinball
> machine" (according to Mills).
Warner Losh wrote:
> It implements exactly what ntpd wants. I asked Judah Levine when
> determining what was pedantically correct during the leap second.
Well, I didn't say that that NTP, and Mills and Levine themselves,
currently form a timekeeping model self-consistent with UTC, rather I
was trying to suggest that POSIX wasn't the only game in town. I've
made more successful rhetorical choices...
> I also consulted with the many different resources avaialable to
> deterimine what the right thing is.
What is correct is to have a 61 second minute occasionally, neither
to redo the first second of the next day, nor to repeat the last
second of the current day.
Presumably no one would object if the ITU made it easier to obtain a
copy of 460.4.
Rob
Received on Sun Jan 07 2007 - 08:30:28 PST