Agree 100%
Hence my proposal for supporting multiple time scales for different
purposes:
1) TAI: Use this and only this for any and all purposes that involve
recording the time an event took place. Including forensic and scientific
purposes.
2) PIT: Use this for inter-machine communications. It may also be used to
present TAI in a human readable form because the mapping from TAI to PIT is
fixed.
3) Local Time Zones: For human display purposes
From the conversation it seems that the best definition for PIT would be
PIT = TAI + Smear ( Lag (UTC, 50 years ))
On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 12:27 PM, Stewart Bryant
<stewart(_dot_)bryant(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
wrote:
Smearing worries me.
If you have an application where tiny fractions of a second make no
difference, then
a slow smear is a good approximation to no leap second.
However, there are some highly accurate implementations of NTP, and some
highly
sensitive applications that use it, and having a long term interval error,
which is what
happens during a smear, is harmful to those applications.
It seems to me that it might be better to freeze NTP on the current leap
second
offset. Provide the current leap second offset to the application as a
parameter
and let the application deal with it as it chooses.
- Stewart
On 03/01/2017 14:08, Tony Finch wrote:
Joe Touch <touch(_at_)isi(_dot_)edu> wrote:
Smearing leads to differing interpretations of elapsed time for two
reasons:
1) smearing isn't unambiguously specified
2) smearing doesn't match the clock standards set by the ITU (who
defines UTC)
Since leap smear is becoming more popular, it would be sensible to try to
get a consensus on the best way to do it if you do it. Clearly
organizations that do leap smear think (2) leap seconds are too much
trouble so it's better to diverge from official time in a controlled
manner.
To clear up (1) there are a few technical choices on which people seem to
be working towards some kind of agreement...
* If you centre the smear period over the leap second, your maximum error
from UTC is 0.5s, which seems to be preferable to starting or ending
the
smear period on the leap second
* Linear smear works better than sigmoid smear, since it minimizes the
rate divergence for a given smear period, and NTP's algorithms react
better
* Longer smear periods are better, because they give NTP more time to
react to the rate change, and they minimize the rate difference
It looks to me like a 24h leap smear from 12:00 UTC before the leap to
12:00 UTC after the leap has a good chance of becoming more popular than
other leap smear models.
Tony.