Clint Chaplin <clint.chaplin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 10:04 AM, Ofer Inbar <cos@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > If the main problem with leap seconds is their future
> > unpredictability, isn't there a compromise option between the status
> > quo and no more leap seconds? Couldn't they come up with a fixed
> > schedule for leap seconds for many centuries at a time, based on
> > current predictions of approximately how many will be needed each
> > century?
> The earth's rate of rotation is not uniform, and the rate of change of
> that rotation is not uniform, either.
>
> So, predicting future rates and rate of change is not possible.
Even so, the current state of the art is that leap seconds could be
scheduled three years in advance and keep within the |DUT1| < 0.9s limit.
That would make it easier to cope with leap seconds tables as part of
routine software updates, whereas with the current 6 month warning many
systems need to treat the data as dynamic, and this in turn causes
bootstrap problems.
Tony.
--
f.anthony.n.finch <dot@xxxxxxxx> http://dotat.at/
Fair Isle, Faeroes: Northwesterly 5 to 7, occasionally gale 8 for a time in
north Faeroes, becoming variable 4, then southeasterly 4 or 5 in south later.
Rough or very rough. Wintry showers. Good, occasionally poor.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf