Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

[ISO8601] Re: Greenwich Electronic Time (GeT) - NTP Request. From: (Mark Martinec).

Expand Messages
  • g1smd@amsat.org
    [2000-Oct-04] Hi All, The following is a copy of a message sent directly to me. This was in response to my message posted to on
    Message 1 of 1 , Oct 4, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      [2000-Oct-04]



      Hi All,
      The following is a copy of a message sent directly to me. This
      was in response to my message posted to <ISO8601@egroups.com> on
      2000-Sep-22, entitled '[ISO8601] Greenwich Electronic Time (GeT)'.

      The author asked me to pass this back into the ISO 8601 'egroups'
      system, and so here it is......

      [My comments appear in '[__]' brackets like this -- Ian]




      > Received: from amsat.org ([128.54.16.15]) by LOCALHOST
      2000 Oct 02, Mon, 16:50:49 +0100
      > Received: from Tink.ijs.si (Tink.ijs.si [193.2.4.243])
      by amsat.org (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id IAA27586
      2000 Oct 02, Mon, 08:50:41 -0700 (PDT)
      > Received: from cathy.ijs.si (cathy.ijs.si [193.2.4.11])
      by Tink.ijs.si (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65DCA47FA6
      for <g1smd@...>; 2000 Oct 02, Mon, 17:50:24 +0200 (MET DST)
      > Received: from CATHY.IJS.SI by CATHY.IJS.SI (PMDF V4.3-10 #8779)
      id <01JUVC82XI2U0070UR@...>;
      2000 Oct 02, Mon, 17:50:15 +0200 <---- Isn't this a logical
      > Date: 2000 Oct 02, Mon, 17:50:15 +0200 <---- way to do things ? ?
      > From: Mark Martinec <Mark.Martinec@...>
      > Subject: Greenwich Electronic Time (GeT) - NTP Request.
      > To: g1smd@...
      > Message-id: <01JUVC82XI2W0070UR@...> ^^ Yes I _DID_ edit it ^^
      > Return-Path: Mark.Martinec@... [ -- Ian]



      > Hi Ian.

      > Ref: http://www.egroups.com/message/ISO8601/76

      > Since I'm presently not a member of ISO8601@egroups.com mailing list
      > and can't post there directly without becoming one (which I don't want
      > to do right now), I would appreciate if you would post my public
      > reply to the GeT initiative, perhaps as a followup to your message
      > there, if you consider it useful/interesting.

      > Best regards
      > Mark <Mark.Martinec@...>



      -------------------------------------------------------------------------------



      > | Date: 2000 Sep 06, Wed, 16:14:55 +0100
      > | From: Gareth Donovan <gareth@...>
      > | Subject: Greenwich Electronic Time - NTP Request.

      > | Dear NTP service provider,
      > | I am the Project Development Manager with the Interactive Media
      > | in RetailGroup (http://www.imrg.org), which is leading the Greenwich
      > | Electronic Time initiative (http://www.get-time.org) an industry
      > | led project launched on the 1st January 2000 by Tony Blair, the UK
      > | Prime Minister.
      > | [...] ^^ 2000 January 01, Anyone ?? -- Ian ^^


      > Hi Gareth (and others),

      > Since your mail message was sent to several (most?) time keepers
      > from the list of public NTP servers, I thought it would not
      > be too inappropriate to CC my reply to the comp.protocols.time.ntp
      > newsgroup (and ISO8601@egroups.com) and perhaps stir some
      > discussion there.

      > _After_ writing the following reply, I noticed the posting on
      > the mailing list ISO8601@egroups.com from Ian Galpin, dated
      > 2000-09-14, on the same subject:

      > http://www.egroups.com/message/ISO8601/76

      > which basically says the same as I do below. Although this now
      > makes my reply a bit redundant, it does not hurt to say it twice
      > in different words.



      > | [...]
      > | We are currently bringing together a network of accurate public
      > | NTP servers to provide a simple method for internet users to
      > | benefit from synchronizing their system clocks to UTC.

      > | I am writing to ask your permission in principal to include your
      > | NTP servers in the GeT Network, alongside our sponsors and other
      > | interested organizations systems.

      > | Through a generic DNS scheme based on ISO 3166 country codes and
      > | some sub-divisions for larger territories, we will link users to
      > | their closest NTP source. [...]
      > | [...]
      > | accurate, however the lack of knowledge and understanding of the
      > | necessity for accuracy amongst the public and more importantly,
      > | many businesses, will become an issue as the networked economy
      > | and e-commerce continue to grow in importance.

      > | GeT aims to promote this issue and provide a trusted route to
      > | free tools and information for both business and the public.


      > I have mixed feelings about the GeT project. I am aware of its
      > existence since the spring of this year when I was compiling
      > a set of links to time-related information on the web for my
      > NTP page at <http://www.ijs.si/time/> -- and decided at that
      > time _NOT_ to include a link to your project in my document.

      > I welcome your efforts to promote the awareness of the importance
      > of accurate time for e-business and other users, and I congratulate
      > you managed to provide three reference time servers at LINX internet
      > exchange, with the support from the National Physical Laboratory.
      > I also think the choice of NTP for time dissemination
      > across the internet was a good choice (no real rivals there!).

      > What I don't consider a good idea is the confusion you make
      > about the reference time. Although your claimed intention is
      > to reduce confusion, you actually add to it by promoting a
      > 'GMT' time, and even worse, a 'GeT' time when the legal basis
      > for civil time worldwide is UTC.

      > GMT can have two interpretations:
      > - traditionally the Greenwich Mean Time is a time scale based
      > on the apparent motion of the "mean" sun with respect to the
      > zero degrees meridian; this is in fact the UT1 astronomical
      > time scale;
      > - it can also be understood to be a synonym for UTC, as you
      > have chosen.

      > The difference between the two can be up to 0.9 seconds.
      > Negligible? A lot? Depends on your point of view and
      > expectations.

      > Even in your web page <http://www.get-time.org/> you have
      > to explain what is your interpretation of GMT - do you expect
      > to be easier to use GMT and explain every time that you
      > actually mean UTC in this context, or would it be easier to
      > just use UTC, as most of the world-wide legislations on civil
      > time now use?

      > Here is an excerpt from
      > <http://ecco.bsee.swin.edu.au/chronos/GMT-explained.html>

      > In 1928, when the term Universal Time was introduced, variations
      > in the earth's spin were not yet known. So the term GMT was, in
      > essence, replaced by UT1. Despite the official adoption of the
      > term UT, the navigational publications of English-speaking
      > countries retained the term GMT as a synonym for UT1 for some
      > time. So, even today, in astronavigation, GMT can imply UT1. But
      > in general usage (including) that of shortwave broadcasters such
      > as the BBC, for example), GMT now usually means the civil
      > (atomic-second-based) time kept in the United Kingdom which is
      > the standard time of the time zone centred on the 0 degree
      > meridian. In this (the most common) usage, the terms GMT and UTC
      > are identical. But because there are two possible meanings for GMT
      > -----------------------------------------------
      > differing by up to 0.9 seconds, the term GMT should NOT be used
      > -------------------===---------
      > for precise purposes -- particularly not in reference to GPS
      > ----================
      > observations!


      > In <http://www.get-time.org/> => Thinking Time => Avoiding
      > Business Chaos you go even further and introduce a parallel
      > time baseline called GeT, presenting it in such a way that it
      > can easily be understood to mean something different than UTC:

      > GeT: The natural companion to GMT

      > The availability of a parallel E-Time baseline that maps
      > and is understandable in relation to the existing time
      > baseline has a natural market, business and consumer
      > advantage. Simple tools can track and map physical to
      > E-time and make commitments to consumers. The ability to
      > set a user expectation globally in relation to service
      > commitment and fulfillment is essential. Days as a measure
      > of service commitment can be eliminated when service is
      > measured against GeT in hours "Thank you for your order.
      > It will be dispatched at X Hour GeT (XX.YY Supplier Local
      > Time) and is scheduled to be with You at (ZZ.WW Consumer
      > Local time) GeT + Y hours.) By normalizing the time you
      > remove the need for consumers to calculate, understand
      > time differences and provide them a single term of
      > reference for service measure.


      > Now in addition to the GMT ambiguity, each company using your
      > concepts would have to educate their customers (including common
      > everyday people) what GeT means.


      > Enough bashing - and a little sidetrack: I think your
      > programme would be a nice vehicle to promote the use of the
      > ISO 8601 International Date Format (but explicitly not its
      > two-digit year variant). It would be a great relief in the
      > business correspondence to avoid dates like 10/02/01
      > with its 6 possible interpretations, but to see
      > e.g. 2001-10-02 instead.

      > (see <http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/iso-time.html> ,
      > <http://www.saqqara.demon.co.uk/datefmt.htm> ,
      > and <http://www.egroups.com/subscribe/ISO8601> ,
      > in particular <http://www.egroups.com/message/ISO8601/76> ).

      [See also: <http://www.qsl.net/g1smd/isoimp.htm> -- Ian]


      > I do not claim ISO 8601 is flawless, but is the best we have
      > so far.


      > Two quotations from <http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/iso-time.html> :

      > Chicago Manual of Style now recommends using the international
      > standard time notation in publications.
      > [...]
      > In May 1996, the German standard DIN 5008, which specifies
      > typographical rules for German texts written on typewriters,
      > has been updated. The old German numeric date notations DD.MM.YYYY
      > and DD.MM.YY have been replaced by the ISO date notations
      > YYYY-MM-DD and YY-MM-DD. Similarly, the old German time
      > notations hh.mm and hh.mm.ss have been replaced by the ISO
      > notations hh:mm and hh:mm:ss. Those new notations are now
      > also mentioned in the latest edition of the Duden. The German
      > alphanumeric date notation continues to be for example "3. August
      > 1994" or "3. Aug. 1994". The corresponding Austrian standard has
      > already used the ISO 8601 date and time notations before.

      [However I always recommend 1994 Aug 03 or 1994 August 03 -- Ian]


      > ISO 8601 has been adopted as European Standard EN 28601 and is
      > therefore now a valid standard in all EU countries and all
      > conflicting national standards have been changed accordingly.


      > Now back to your original question:



      > | I am writing to ask your permission in principal to include your
      > | NTP servers in the GeT Network, alongside our sponsors and other
      > | interested organisations systems.


      > In principle you have my permission as long as you make it
      > understood to your clients (or somehow enforced automatically)
      > that our NTP server(s) can be used under the same conditions under
      > which they are listed in the David Mills' list of public servers.
      > In particular I wouldn't want to see the end-users' desktop PCs to
      > directly try to obtain their time from our public NTP servers. I
      > don't object to the company's main time servers to sync to our NTP
      > servers though. I also don't like misconfigured PCs banging on our
      > firewall trying to access our time server using other protocols
      > than NTP, such as the Time Protocol (RFC868), or Daytime Protocol
      > (RFC867).

      > The other condition is that I don't allow our company (institute)
      > name or my personal name to be used as an endorsement of, or to
      > promote GeT, or any company using it, or any product made by such
      > a company, by IMRG or GeT.



      > Best regards
      > Mark Martinec (timekeeper@...)


      > --
      > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
      > !! Mark Martinec (system manager) tel +386 1 4773-575 !!
      > !! J. Stefan Institute, Jamova 39 fax +386 1 2519-385 !!
      > !! SI-1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia mark.martinec@... !!
      > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! http://www.ijs.si/people/mark/ !!!!





      I hope the above may be of some interest to various people on the ISO 8601
      egroups system.


      Also, don't forget my list of ISO 8601 equivalent standards around the
      world. This can be found at: <http://www.qsl.net/g1smd/isoimp.htm>.



      Cheers,

      Ian.


      <mail://g1smd@...>

      <http://www.qsl.net/g1smd/>
      <http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dstrange/y2k.htm>

      <ftp://ftp.funet.fi/pub/ham/misc/g1smd.zip>
      <ftp://ftp.qsl.net/pub/g1smd/>


      [2000-10-04]

      .end
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.