[LEAPSECS] Evidence of absence

[Rob Seaman]

> From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk at phk.freebsd.dk>

> Date: June 1, 2011 11:12:59 PM MST

> Subject: [LEAPSECS] Leap second mess at NASA

> 

> http://cdf.gsfc.nasa.gov/html/leapseconds_requirements.html

> 

> In particular section 3.3


Verbs are good.  What exactly is being asserted about the implications of leap seconds for this grab bag of NASA missions?  There are many NASA centers, GSFC is just one (and many other missions are managed by other centers).  There are many data formats, CDF is just one:

	http://cdf.gsfc.nasa.gov/

Additional discussion of leap seconds under this narrow context is at:

	http://cdf.gsfc.nasa.gov/html/leapseconds.html

Perhaps what is being asserted is that the ITU-R has not performed due diligence, since the CDF project at the Goddard Space Flight Center appears completely unaware of the ITU-R's initiative to make their current efforts moot?

From http://cdf.gsfc.nasa.gov/:


>> 04/21/2011: On the horizon... CDF will support leap seconds in the future release. CDF support staff Robert Candey 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: new.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 116 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : <http://six.pairlist.net/pipermail/leapsecs/attachments/20110602/a83897f9/attachment.gif>
-------------- next part --------------

>>  wrote two documents about the requirements for handling the leap seconds and our development approach . 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: new.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 116 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : <http://six.pairlist.net/pipermail/leapsecs/attachments/20110602/a83897f9/attachment-0001.gif>
-------------- next part --------------

("NEW" in the original.)

Surely NASA is the definition of a significant stakeholder for precision timekeeping?  Due diligence by the ITU-R on a project to completely redefine civil timekeeping standards (the issue is UTC and TAI, not leap seconds) would leave persistent and visible markers scattered throughout the many, many NASA projects (and their web sites).  On the contrary, there is a remarkable lack of such evidence (anywhere, not just at NASA) after a dozen years of this unilateral ITU-R scorched Earth campaign.

As I've said before, any system engineer knows that the quickest way to introduce change (not to mention the best way) is to seek consensus *before* designing, implementing, testing and deploying a new system.

For instance - is there any evidence that the ITU-R process has been informed by the CDF's requirements document?  What sandbox testing has occurred?  Design reviews?

	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_review_(US_Government)

"Fait accompli" is another way of saying "lazy".

Rob