[LEAPSECS] LEAPSECS Digest, Vol 82, Issue 6

[Gerard Ashton]

It depends on what "depends" means.

There may be incorrectly implemented systems that need to be aligned to UT1
within 1 s, regardless of whether in the future civil time is steered toward
UT1 or not. I don't think any such systems have been discussed on this list.

There are systems that correctly implement leap seconds, but have no
requirement to be aligned to UT1 as such, they only have a requirement to be
aligned to civil time within some tolerance in the range of 1 second or a
few seconds.

There are systems that correctly implement leap seconds and do need to be
aligned to UT1 within 1 s, and do not have a requirement to be aligned with
civil time.

Gerard Ashton

-----Original Message-----
From: leapsecs-bounces at leapsecond.com
[mailto:leapsecs-bounces at leapsecond.com] On Behalf Of Finkleman, Dave
Sent: Saturday, August 10, 2013 12:11 PM
To: <leapsecs at leapsecond.com>
Subject: Re: [LEAPSECS] LEAPSECS Digest, Vol 82, Issue 6


> There is no definitive assessment of the costs either to fix things

currently broken by leap seconds or to change things now compatible If the
definition of UTC is changed.   However, things now broken do not depend on
the leap second whereas those that have implemented it correctly obviously
do.  Why is that so hard for many to understand?

DF


_______________________________________________
LEAPSECS mailing list
LEAPSECS at leapsecond.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs