[LEAPSECS] leap second roundup 2017

[John Sauter]

On Sun, 2017-10-22 at 23:46 -0600, Warner Losh wrote:
> 
> 
> On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 11:02 PM, John Sauter <John_Sauter at systemeyes
> computerstore.com> wrote:
> > On Sun, 2017-10-22 at 17:53 -0700, Steve Allen wrote:
> > >
> > > The BIPM has contributed
> > > CGPM draft Resolution "On the definition of Time-Scales"
> > > For two years various meetings have indicated that a document
> > like
> > > this was under construction, so this is probably that result.
> > >
> > > A draft of the document seems to be at
> > > http://www.iaufs.org/CCTF%20Recommendation-DRAFT.pdf
> > > It largely seems to be a formal way for the CGPM to update the
> > > definition of TAI and UTC to match what the IAU did over a decade
> > > ago.
> > > Unsurprisingly it makes no mention of the connection between the
> > > calendar day and UT1.
> > 
> > The next-to-last bullet point under "clarifies that" states that
> > "UTC
> > is also a means of dissemination of the standard of frequency;
> > however
> > this function is limited to intervals that do not contain leap
> > seconds;".  Why the concern about leap seconds?  As long as you
> > know
> > the name of each second, why should it matter that there is a leap
> > second in the interval?
> 
> Because one cannot reliably know that. And by reliably, I mean
> everybody knows, all the software knows, all the software agrees,
> even among diverse groups whose primary purpose may not be time
> keeping and may have sloppy habits about leap seconds (eg, the real
> world).
> 
> One can know it, sure, but one cannot count on every single other
> person who touches the data knowing it with certainty. So it's just
> best to avoid data that spans a leap second.
> 

By that logic, one should avoid any interval that includes June 30 or
December 31, since such an interval might include a leap second.
    John Sauter (John_Sauter at systemeyescomputerstore.com)
-- 
PGP fingerprint E24A D25B E5FE 4914 A603  49EC 7030 3EA1 9A0B 511E