Re: [LEAPSECS] Internet-Draft on UTC-SLS

From: Ed Davies <ls_at_EDAVIES.NILDRAM.CO.UK>
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 21:33:09 +0000

Ed Davies:
>> Appendix A argues against putting the adjustment interval after the
>> leap second (method 4a) by pointing out that some time signals
>> contain announcements of the leap second before it happens but not
>> after.

Rob Seaman:
> Right, ...

Ed Davies:
>> I think a stronger argument against this method of adjustment is
>> that during positive leap seconds UTC and UTC-SLS would be
>> indicating different dates:

Rob Seaman:
> This may be a fact - it does not itself constitute an argument. An
> argument would have to answer the question: So what?

You're right - I left the denouement implicit.

With this method (4a) UTC-SLS would not have the property listed in
section 3: "the time always equals UTC at full or half hours". I
think this is a valuable property; as the text following the 4a), 4b)
and 4c) options notes: "...would be reached at midnight, which is a
time commonly used to schedule events and deadlines."

I hope that makes sense.

Received on Thu Jan 19 2006 - 13:34:20 PST

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