Hi -
From: "Alan Barrett" <apb(_at_)cequrux(_dot_)com>
To: <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 1:08 AM
Subject: Re: Document Action: 'BinaryTime: An alternate format
forrepresenting date and time in ASN.1' to Experimental RFC
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004, Graham Klyne wrote:
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)?
I assume it means "assuming exactly 86400 seconds per day".
...
I had understood it to mean that the values coming from the seconds
clock would have no gaps or duplicates due to leap seconds. This is very
useful if the system needs to calculate accurate intervals, especially if it
won't be receiving software updates to tell it when leap seconds have
occurred. An assumption of "exactly 86400 seconds per day" means
that the seconds clock would have to be advanced (or possibly set back)
at the time the leap second is to be inserted so that the fiction of an
86400-second day could be maintained, and would thus require that
the system be informed when leap seconds are to be inserted. Otherwise,
dates and times derived form the clock would drift.
This is an old debate.
Randy
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf