On Feb 7, 2012, at 11:03 , Tony Finch wrote: > > Actually TAI depends a lot on relativity as well as quantum physics. For > example, it is supposed to match the rate of the SI second on the geoid > (which is roughly mean sea level). NIST's lab in Colorado is about a mile > high, so they have to apply a general relativistic rate correction to > their atomic clocks because of their gravitational potential. I'm aware of that. The point I was trying to make so clumsily is that, outside of the physical contexts where relativity and quantum effects are significant, TAI is a comparatively stable and predictable timescale next to the UTC and the NTP timescales. It would be a perfectly good replacement as The Internet Timescale. >> so it should be good enough for most running code on the Internet. > > Except where that code needs UTC. ...or awareness any other timezone, for that matter. On Feb 7, 2012, at 11:12 , John C Klensin wrote: > > 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... I said "somewhat resistant" not "impervious" didn't I? [I'm not going to recount any of the stories I know about various famous technology sector executives and their unhappy encounters with the laws of physics.] -- james woodyatt <jhw@xxxxxxxxx> member of technical staff, core os networking _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf