[LEAPSECS] stale leap second information

[Steffen Nurpmeso]

I really like your protocol and am in fact pretty impressed at the
moment (but that may have nothing to do with your design and code,
looking at Python always makes me feel very petty).
Maybe it would be sufficient to start at 2014, which would avoid
counting months of 42 years -- just like you've said.

"Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk at phk.freebsd.dk> wrote:
 |--------
 |In message <20150117192013.ZpD8Kq7W%sdaoden at yandex.com>, Steffen \
 |Nurpmeso write
 |s:
 |>moral is the one thing, but what i really had in mind was the
 |>problem with some lawyer getting in touch with the fact that for
 |>six months or even longer some client address is "misused" by some
 |>protocol.
 |
 |1.  No IP addresses are misused, in the sense that should anybody
 |    have a valid claim to use these addresess, nothing I do will
 |    impact their ability to do so.  I'm merely transmitting numbers,
 |    there will never on my behalf be an IP packet using these
 |    numbers as source or destination addresses.

Class E should be out-of-bounds, and if that isn't a valid "future
use" then maybe IANA has too many lawyers, too.

 |2.  I live in a civilized society and have repeatedly heard lawyers
 |    from the US deflate once they realized that they didn't known
 |    what the relevant laws said, much less the language to find out.

Let me take breath first..  We know Denmark is civilised and has
good Autobahns, but all that declines already some kilometers
southwards, so to say, which i regret, of course :)
I don't think it would be worth fighting if there is such a easy
workaround as using "future use" class E.
Things are different for species of fauna and flora, amino acids
or sticky bits, but obviously that war has been lost in fields of
devastation.
Ciao :)

--steffen