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". --apb (Alan Barrett) _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf