[LEAPSECS] CCTF reported to CIPM last month and it's interesting!

[Michael Wouters]

Hello

The 2028 option is there if it looks less likely that there will be a
positive leap second than was estimated earlier this year. It is there to
allow a bit more time for adapting to the new UT1-UTC tolerance,  if the
risk is acceptable.

Regards
Michael

On Wed, 3 Dec 2025 at 2:46 am, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk at phk.freebsd.dk> wrote:

> --------
> Magnus Danielson writes:
>
> > For the record, when ITU-T Q13/15 had BIPM as invited guest to discuss
> > consequences of negative leapseconds, we in Q13 strongly recommended
> > that a wider tolerance for UT1-UTC difference be implemented sooner, to
> > avoid negative leapsecons, as we forsee a larger set of consequence than
> > for positive leapseconds, even if some testing have been done.
>
> That's why the 2028 option puzzles me?
>
> Nothing in their presentation even hints that somebody has as much
> as vaguely speculated that 2027 might be too early ?
>
> I wonder if it is simply a legal/procedure thing ?
>
> Does anybody here know what the precise legal path is from CPGM to
> the BIPM Director's inbox ?
>
> Does it to go through both IAU and ITU ?
>
>
> --
> Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
> phk at FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
> FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe
> Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
> _______________________________________________
> LEAPSECS mailing list
> LEAPSECS at leapsecond.com
> https://pairlist6.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://pairlist6.pair.net/pipermail/leapsecs/attachments/20251203/5f0e1126/attachment.htm>