- From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
- Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2022 05:31:49 +0000
- To: Austin William Wright <aaa@bzfx.net>
- cc: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
-------- Austin William Wright writes: > I don't believe 'works 99.999998% of the time" may be > good enough. Well, that's what everything based on POSIX offers today. Trying to compensate for that deficiency in the HTTP layer is counter-indicated: We should take, and trust, the time from the platform we run on, and handle leap seconds however that platform does. If the platform jumps over leap-seconds, we should follow it, if it smears over them, we should slide along. > Rather, if support for fractional seconds is important for any reason at > all, [...] Last we talked about it, the CDN people really wanted it for things like Cache-Control etc. > Let me propose a different argument for your case: UTC is inherently > discontinuous, [...] and all HTTP relevant practical realizations of UTC have variable frequency. But again: Inventing a new time-keeping paradigm for HTTP is a non-starter. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Received on Friday, 17 June 2022 05:31:59 UTC