[dragging the author into an IETF list discussion]
ouch....
the language on leap seconds was added because I asked about it at IESG
evaluation time.
I think Russ' intention for this was that you should be able to copy the
Unix time() into it without any further thinking (except wondering whether
the clock is accurate) - "ignoring leap seconds" rather obviously doesn't
say the same thing to everyone....
Suggestions for rewording? Russ?
Harald
--On mandag, november 15, 2004 16:29:30 +0100 Simon Leinen
<simon(_at_)limmat(_dot_)switch(_dot_)ch> wrote:
Graham Klyne writes:
The integer value is the number of seconds after midnight UTC,
January 1, 1970.
NEW:
The integer value is the number of seconds, ignoring leap seconds,
after midnight UTC, January 1, 1970.
This slipped under my radar until this announcement.
Has there been detailed discussion of leap second issues? What
exactly does the revised text "ignoring leap seconds" actually mean
(I think I can guess, but I also think there's some room for
misinterpretation here)?
Yes. Maybe "excluding leap seconds" would have been clearer.
--
Simon.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf