On Feb 7, 2012, at 11:03 , Tony Finch wrote:
Actually TAI depends a lot on relativity as well as quantum physics. For
example, it is supposed to match the rate of the SI second on the geoid
(which is roughly mean sea level). NIST's lab in Colorado is about a mile
high, so they have to apply a general relativistic rate correction to
their atomic clocks because of their gravitational potential.
I'm aware of that. The point I was trying to make so clumsily is that, outside
of the physical contexts where relativity and quantum effects are significant,
TAI is a comparatively stable and predictable timescale next to the UTC and the
NTP timescales.
It would be a perfectly good replacement as The Internet Timescale.
so it should be good enough for most running code on the Internet.
Except where that code needs UTC.
...or awareness any other timezone, for that matter.
On Feb 7, 2012, at 11:12 , John C Klensin wrote:
You obviously have not been in enough meetings in which proposals were put
forth, by political types with the best of intentions, for regulations to
improve the Internet...
I said "somewhat resistant" not "impervious" didn't I? [I'm not going to
recount any of the stories I know about various famous technology sector
executives and their unhappy encounters with the laws of physics.]
--
james woodyatt <jhw(_at_)apple(_dot_)com>
member of technical staff, core os networking
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf