Re: [LEAPSECS] Longer leap second notice, was: Where the responsibility lies

From: Poul-Henning Kamp <>
Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2006 00:22:29 +0100

In message <>, Ed Davies writes:
>Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>>> If we can increase the tolerance to 10sec, IERS can give us the
>>> leapseconds with 20 years notice and only the minority of computers
>>> that survive longer than that would need to update the factory
>>> installed table of leapseconds.
>PHK can reply for himself here but, for the record, I think RS's
>reading of what he said is different from mine. My assumption is
>that PHK is discussing the idea that leaps should be scheduled many
>years in advance. They should continue to be single second leaps -
>just many more would be in the schedule pipeline at any given
>Obviously, the leap seconds would be scheduled on the best available
>estimates but as we don't know the future rotation of the Earth this
>would necessarily increase the tolerance. In theory DUT1 would be
>unbounded (as it sort of is already) but PHK is assuming that there'd
>be some practical likely upper bound such as 10 seconds.
>Am I right in this reading?


Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk_at_FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Received on Tue Jan 03 2006 - 15:33:27 PST

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