Hi - > From: "Alan Barrett" <apb@xxxxxxxxxxx> > To: <ietf@xxxxxxxx> > 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@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf