Re: [LEAPSECS] The real problem with leap seconds

From: Deckers, Michael <Michael.Deckers_at_FUJITSU-SIEMENS.COM>
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 16:36:45 +0100

   Mark Calabretta wrote on 2006-01-17:

> The way UTC is disseminated is not directly relevant to the
> and I don't think I said anything about topology.

   You are right, you did not mention topology. But I am still
   that the 60 s notation as proposed by [ITU-R TF.460] to disambiguate
   timestamps taken during a positive leap second (and not the
   proper of UTC) has been one of the roots for the elaborate
   of UTC where UTC is not just taken as the (discontinuous) timescale
   TAI - DTAI.

   What leads me to the more pertinent question: if UTC really is just
   TAI in disguise, why shouldn't we adopt a new UTC as TAI - 33 s,
   any disguise? Not that I am advocating the departure of civil time
   solar time -- I am just checking the arguments against it.

   To consider UTC as a representation of TAI, you need a table of past
   leap seconds (when the variable radix for the second field was 59 or
   By the same token (but without variable radix notation) you can go
   from TAI to TAI - DTAI. If the UTC of today gives you both TAI and
   TAI - DTAI then a dissemination of TAI - 33 s with the appropriate
   marks for leap seconds (leaps in DTAI) surely would do the same?

   Michael Deckers
Received on Thu Jan 19 2006 - 09:21:29 PST

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