On 2012-02-09 10:41, Steven Bellovin wrote: > On Feb 7, 2012, at 2:12 59PM, John C Klensin wrote: > >> >> --On Tuesday, February 07, 2012 10:45 -0800 james woodyatt >> <jhw@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> ... >>> TAI has a fairly stable foundation in non-relativistic >>> physics, which experience has shown to be somewhat resistant >>> to the power of political bodies to modify at will, so it >>> should be good enough for most running code on the Internet. >> 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... >> regulations that would work really well if the speed of light >> were adjusted upward by 10% or so and/or could be dialed up and >> back by a bit to match regulatory convenience. :-( >> >> What was that about a free lunch? > > > Yes. A line I heard recently (from someone else whom I think is > on this list) is that when you tell a politician that something > violates the laws of physics, that statement is taken as a negotiating > position. I don't see the problem. An experiment in Italy has observed super-luminal neutrinos, and a somewhat unlikely violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics would allow pigs to fly and all NTP servers to update themselves simultaneously. Clearly these are matters that any self-respecting politician could use in negotiation. I am much more worried about http://internetsociety.org/events/internet-society-events/world-conference-international-telecommunications than about UTC. Brian _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf