Re: [LEAPSECS] Mechanism to provide tai-utc.dat locally

From: Rob Seaman <>
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 20:53:32 -0700

M. Warner Losh wrote:

> Let's turn the question around. What would the harm be if |DUT1| were
> 1.1s? 1.5s? 2.0s? Contrast this with the harm and difficulty that
> the current 6 month scheduling window affords.

Indeed. Go for it. I look forward to reading your report. Who and
what interests are adversely affected in each case? How are these
effects mitigated as a function of the limit on DUT1? Also, contrast
what benefits accrue. One would think that the responsibility for
quantifying the implications of a change to a standard would fall on
the parties proposing said change.

Received on Thu Dec 28 2006 - 19:53:41 PST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sat Sep 04 2010 - 09:44:55 PDT