On 10/21/2016 8:41 PM, John Yeung wrote:
On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 1:37 PM, Buck Calabro <kc2hiz@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I will forward the results of my PMR. Based on my inability to clearly
state the issue here, I'm not hopeful that I can do so with IBM either.
I'm sorry to say that I seem to have equal inability to clearly state
my viewpoint.
I think I follow your argument well enough. You think the benefit is
too small for the cost. That's probably going to be what IBM tell me
too. I will let the list know when I hear.
I don't have any idea about the cost.
As for the benefit, DB2 for i is demonstrably not compliant with ISO
8601 with respect to storing leap seconds.
ISO 8601:2400 says this about representing the second:
'2.2 Time units, nominal durations and time intervals
2.2.1
second
base unit of measurement of time in the International System
of Units (SI) as defined by the International
Committee of Weights and Measures (CIPM, i.e. Comité International des
Poids et Mesures)
NOTE 1
See also ISO 31-1.
NOTE 2
It is the base unit for expressing duration.
2.2.2
leap second
intentional time step of one second to adjust UTC to ensure
appropriate agreement with UT1, a time scale
based on the rotation of the Earth
[Rec. ITU-R TF.460-5]
NOTE
An inserted second is called positive leap second and an
omitted second is called negative leap second. A
positive leap second is inserted between [23:59:59Z] and
[24:00:00Z] and can be represented as [23:59:60Z]. Negative
leap seconds are achieved by the omission of [23:59:59Z].
Insertion or omission takes place as determined by IERS,
normally on 30 June or 31 December, but if necessary on 31 March or 30
September.'
I'm only arguing that DB2 for i comply with ISO 8601.
midrange.com
