[ntp:questions] Number of Stratum 1 & Stratum 2 Peers

William Unruh unruh at invalid.ca
Mon Dec 15 01:09:03 UTC 2014


On 2014-12-15, Jochen Bern <Jochen.Bern at LINworks.de> wrote:
> On 12/14/2014 09:04 AM, Brian Inglis wrote:
>> Legal civil time in most countries is defined as mean solar time, where it
>> is not still defined relative to GMT, as it is in most countries in the
>> Commonwealth of Nations deriving their common laws from England, and many
>> allied European and Asian countries.

That is certainly not true. All places use time zones, which are not
mean solar time (except sometimes on one particular latitude in the
country, but not even always that).
>
> Hm. Is that really the case? The current German legislation refers to
> "coordinated world time" (which might be taken as referring to TAI just
> as well as to UTC, as far as I can understand) and assigns the task of

I doubt it. It refers to Middle European Time, and says that is defined
by the coordinated world (or universal) time plus an hour (or 2 for summer time). 
And from Wikipedia, "Coordinated Universal Time (French: temps universel
coordonné, UTC)". 
And from Wikipedia.de
Die koordinierte Weltzeit (englisch Coordinated Universal Time,
französisch Temps universel coordonnÃ, kurz UTC (englisch Universal
Time, Coordinated)
So, while Wikipedia is not German law, the use of the terms seems to be
pretty unambiguous. 

> "distributing the legal time" to the PTB (which could be construed as
> ruling anything besides DCF77-based notions of time "not the legal
> thing"; BTW, DCF77 announces leap seconds only about an hour before the
> fact, with no specs *asserting* so that I could find).
>
> http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/me_einhg/__4.html
>
>> I am somewhat surprised that no lawyer has, as yet, argued for phone
>> evidence to be discarded because telco equipment uses TAI or GPS time
>> scales which have no legal basis in any country.

Since they differ from UTC by a trivial amount, the lawyer could argue
it, but would not get very far.

>
> Too easily countered by actual measurements showing that the equipment's
> notion of time never strayed more than a worst-case total of X ms (or, a
> la rigeur, X seconds) from the notion mandated by the legalese, I'ld
> guess. It's not like the courts would turn a blind eye to evidence just
> because they'ld prefer an official endorsement by the parliament.
>
> (Always assuming that the facts needing confirmation allow for that much
> deviation, of course. But high-speed trades aren't concluded on devices
> on a GSM network, are they?)

The importance of trades is usually a before/after. And UTC TAI, GPS all
have exactly the same definition of before and after. Of course if one
time was in UTC and the otehr in TAI, that could well be successfully
argued. 




More information about the questions mailing list