[tz] Fwd: Bulletin C number 57

Tim Parenti tim at timtimeonline.com
Fri Feb 1 14:35:19 UTC 2019

On Fri, 1 Feb 2019 at 07:44, Tony Finch <dot at dotat.at> wrote:

> Paul Eggert <eggert at cs.ucla.edu> wrote:
> >
> > One cannot simply translate the IERS file to the NIST file, as the NIST
> file
> > has information that the IERS file lacks, namely, the last time that the
> data
> > were changed.
> Isn't that always 5ish months before the last leap second? :-)

Well, both have a #$ line, but the purpose is slightly different.  For
NIST, the value is the last time that only the data were changed (currently
2016-07-08T00:00:00Z), but for IERS it's the last time the file as a whole
was updated, including the metadata (currently 2019-01-07T14:19:26Z).

I would imagine, yes, IERS wouldn't be keen on adopting NIST's practices
for this line, but I don't necessarily see the reverse change being
particularly disruptive, if we were to take IERS' file as-is.  In the worst
case, anyone relying on the less-often-updated NIST version of the line
would just end up pulling the same, unchanged data once every six months.

Tim Parenti
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/tz/attachments/20190201/37a479b1/attachment.htm>

More information about the tz mailing list