[LEAPSECS] Standards of time zones -Brooks Harris

[Brooks Harris]

Hi Rob,


On 2014-01-09 04:18 PM, Rob Seaman wrote:

> On Jan 9, 2014, at 4:58 PM, Brooks Harris <brooks at edlmax.com> wrote:

>

>> Well, its clear the "end game" would take a long time to realize. It will take serious patience on the part of folks who care.

> We’re halfway there, then ;-)  This conversation has been going on for a very long time.

Yes, I know.


> Click through to the archives for the current list and for the original leapsecs list from:

>

> 	http://www.cacr.caltech.edu/futureofutc/links.html

>

> The place to start before making a foray into the mailing list, however, is with Steve Allen’s excellent pages:

>

> 	http://ucolick.org/~sla/leapsecs/


Yes, I'm aware of and read much of it. Its a great collection of the issues.


>

>> My point is that the standards, where they exist, are dispersed and fractured.

> Indeed.  They are also contingent on physical context from the real world.  It is simple fact that a single time scale is insufficient to model the complexity of the systems required.


Agreed. But a consistent "civil time" seems to be where the break-downs 
occur and what has lead to the call to "eliminate Leap Seconds". This is 
in no small part due to the know inadequacies of POSIX and NTP. So I 
think some effort to better unify the behavior of "civil time", partly 
by better documenting UTC's role in "civil time" would go a long way 
towards relieving this pressure.


>

>> So, an effort to simply consolidate the terms, definitions, and standards into a single reference document would go a long way toward lending clarity to system implementers, other industries, and, importantly, to governments seeking to refine their laws to coordinate time and commerce with other jurisdictions.

> Maybe a reference library is a reasonable place to start rather than a single document.  I’m biased, but not therefore wrong, in recommending the proceedings of the 2011 and 2013 UTC meetings:


Well, when I say "document" it might not take the form of a single 
document - it could be several coordinated publications. My point partly 
is it needs to created by due-process.

Maybe, just maybe, if enough experts rallied around a common due-process 
document, then maybe, just maybe, the ITU might take a fresh look at it, 
and maybe, just maybe, they'd consider refinements to the UTC specs like 
you've suggested. And maybe, just maybe, the call to kill UTC would fade 
away.



>

> Decoupling Civil Timekeeping from Earth Rotation:

>

> 	http://futureofutc.org/2011/preprints/

>

> Requirements for UTC and Civil Timekeeping on Earth:

>

> 	http://futureofutc.org/preprints/

>

> The published proceedings are available from the American Astronautical Society:

>

> 	http://www.univelt.com/Science.html

>

> As well as this week’s well attended American Astronomical Society splinter meeting:

>

> 	http://futureofutc.org/aas223/


Thanks very much. I've read some of these and I'll review them all.

-Brooks


>

> Rob Seaman

> National Optical Astronomy Observatory

>

> _______________________________________________

> LEAPSECS mailing list

> LEAPSECS at leapsecond.com

> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs

>

>