TAI zone?

[Paul Koning]

On Jun 29, 2011, at 8:57 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:

> Paul Koning <paul_koning at Dell.com> writes:
> 
>> "Remove leap seconds from UTC" is clearly absurd, and I'm baffled that
>> ACM would lend its good name to such a notion.  UTC is defined as atomic
>> time plus leap seconds, for good and sufficient reasons.  And as was
>> pointed out, TAI already exists for those who want atomic time plain,
>> without leap seconds.
> 
> That isn't really what the ACM article says.  Insofar as it makes an
> argument, it's arguing for just never declaring another leap second and
> letting UTC drift, possibly fixing that with a time zone change at the
> point at which enough error has accumulated to shift time by an hour.  It
> isn't arguing for undoing any of the leap seconds that we've already been
> through.

Thanks.  Interesting.  That's certainly one way to "kick the can down the road".
> 
> The alternative proposal is that leap seconds be declared twenty years in
> advance ...

Is that actually possible?

	paul