A leap second is a one-second adjustment that is occasionally applied to Coordinated Universal Time (UTC), to accommodate the difference between precise time (as measured by atomic clocks) and imprecise observed solar time (known as UT1 and which varies due to irregularities and long-term slowdown in the Earth's rotation). The UTC time standard, which is widely used for international timekeeping and as the reference for civil time in most countries, uses precise "atomic time" and consequently would run ahead of observed solar time unless it is reset to UT1 as needed. The leap second facility exists to provide this adjustment.
Because the Earth's rotation speed varies in response to climatic and geological events, UTC leap seconds are irregularly spaced and unpredictable. Insertion of each UTC leap second is usually decided about six months in advance by the International Earth Rotation and Reference Systems Service (IERS), to ensure that the difference between the UTC and UT1 readings will never exceed 0.9 seconds.
This practice has proved disruptive, particularly in the twenty-first century and especially in services that depend on precise time stamping or time-critical process control. The relevant international standards body has been debating whether or not to continue the practice with an increasing number of nations supporting its abolition.
About 140 AD, Ptolemy, the Alexandrian astronomer, sexagesimally subdivided both the mean solar day and the true solar day to at least six places after the sexagesimal point, and he used simple fractions of both the equinoctial hour and the seasonal hour, none of which resemble the modern second. Muslim scholars, including al-Biruni in 1000, subdivided the mean solar day into 24 equinoctial hours, each of which was subdivided sexagesimally, that is into the units of minute, second, third, fourth and fifth, creating the modern second as 1⁄60 of 1⁄60 of 1⁄24 = 1⁄86,400 of the mean solar day in the process. With this definition, the second was proposed in 1874 as the base unit of time in the CGS system of units. Soon afterwards Simon Newcomb and others discovered that Earth's rotation period varied irregularly, so in 1952, the International Astronomical Union (IAU) defined the second as a fraction of the sidereal year. In 1995, considering the tropical year to be more fundamental than the sidereal year, the IAU redefined the second as the fraction 1⁄31,556,925.975 of the 1900.0 mean tropical year. In 1956, a slightly more precise value of 1⁄31,556,925.9747 was adopted for the definition of the second by the International Committee for Weights and Measures, and in 1960 by the General Conference on Weights and Measures, becoming a part of the International System of Units (SI).
Eventually, this definition too was found to be inadequate for precise time measurements, so in 1967, the SI second was again redefined as 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation emitted by a caesium-133 atom in the transition between the two hyperfine levels of its ground state. That value agreed to 1 part in 1010 with the astronomical (ephemeris) second then in use. It was also close to 1⁄86,400 of the mean solar day as averaged between years 1750 and 1892.
However, for the past several centuries, the length of the mean solar day has been increasing by about 1.4–1.7 ms per century, depending on the averaging time. By 1961, the mean solar day was already a millisecond or two longer than 86,400 SI seconds. Therefore, time standards that change the date after precisely 86,400 SI seconds, such as the International Atomic Time (TAI), will get increasingly ahead of time standards tied to the mean solar day, such as Universal Time (UT1).
When the Coordinated Universal Time standard was instituted in 1961, based on atomic clocks, it was felt necessary to maintain agreement with the GMT time of day, which, until then, had been the reference for broadcast time services. Thus, from 1961 to 1971, the rate of (some) atomic clocks was constantly slowed to remain synchronised with GMT. During that period, therefore, the "seconds" of broadcast services were actually slightly longer than the SI second and closer to the GMT seconds.
In 1972, the leap-second system was introduced so that the UTC seconds could be set exactly equal to the standard SI second, while still maintaining the UTC time of day and changes of UTC date synchronized with those of UT1 (the solar time standard that superseded GMT). By then, the UTC clock was already 10 seconds behind TAI, which had been synchronized with UT1 in 1958, but had been counting true SI seconds since then. After 1972, both clocks have been ticking in SI seconds, so the difference between their displays at any time is 10 seconds plus the total number of leap seconds that have been applied to UTC (37 seconds as of January 2019).
Insertion of leap seconds
|Year||Jun 30||Dec 31|
|Year||Jun 30||Dec 31|
|Current TAI − UTC|
The scheduling of leap seconds was initially delegated to the Bureau International de l'Heure (BIH), but passed to the International Earth Rotation and Reference Systems Service (IERS) on January 1, 1988. IERS usually decides to apply a leap second whenever the difference between UTC and UT1 approaches 0.6 s, in order to keep the difference between UTC and UT1 from exceeding 0.9 s.
The UTC standard allows leap seconds to be applied at the end of any UTC month, with first preference to June and December and second preference to March and September. As of January 2017, all of them have been inserted at the end of either June 30 or December 31. IERS publishes announcements every six months, whether leap seconds are to occur or not, in its "Bulletin C". Such announcements are typically published well in advance of each possible leap second date – usually in early January for June 30 and in early July for December 31. Some time signal broadcasts give voice announcements of an impending leap second.
Between 1972 and 2018, a leap second has been inserted about every 20 months, on average. However, the spacing is quite irregular and apparently increasing: there were no leap seconds in the six-year interval between January 1, 1999 and December 31, 2004, but there were nine leap seconds in the eight years 1972–1979.
Unlike leap days, UTC leap seconds occur simultaneously worldwide; for example, the leap second on December 31, 2005 23:59:60 UTC was December 31, 2005 18:59:60 (6:59:60 p.m.) in U.S. Eastern Standard Time and January 1, 2006 08:59:60 (a.m.) in Japan Standard Time.
When it is mandated, a positive leap second is inserted between second 23:59:59 of a chosen UTC calendar date and second 00:00:00 of the following date. The definition of UTC states that the last day of December and June are preferred, with the last day of March or September as second preference, and the last day of any other month as third preference. All leap seconds (as of 2019) have been scheduled for either June 30 or December 31. The extra second is displayed on UTC clocks as 23:59:60. On clocks that display local time tied to UTC, the leap second may be inserted at the end of some other hour (or half-hour or quarter-hour), depending on the local time zone. A negative leap second would suppress second 23:59:59 of the last day of a chosen month, so that second 23:59:58 of that date would be followed immediately by second 00:00:00 of the following date. Since the introduction of leap seconds, the mean solar day has outpaced atomic time only for very brief periods, and has not triggered a negative leap second.
Slowing rotation of the Earth
Leap seconds are irregularly spaced because the Earth's rotation speed changes irregularly. Indeed, the Earth's rotation is quite unpredictable in the long term, which explains why leap seconds are announced only six months in advance.
A mathematical model of the variations in the length of the solar day was developed by F. R. Stephenson and L. V. Morrison, based on records of eclipses for the period 700 BC to 1623 AD, telescopic observations of occultations for the period 1623 until 1967 and atomic clocks thereafter. The model shows a steady increase of the mean solar day by 1.70 ms (± 0.05 ms) per century, plus a periodic shift of about 4 ms amplitude and period of about 1,500 yr. Over the last few centuries, the periodic component reduced the rate of lengthening of the mean solar day to about 1.4 ms per century.
The main reason for the slowing down of the Earth's rotation is tidal friction, which alone would lengthen the day by 2.3 ms/century. Other contributing factors are the movement of the Earth's crust relative to its core, changes in mantle convection, and any other events or processes that cause a significant redistribution of mass. These processes change the Earth's moment of inertia, affecting the rate of rotation due to conservation of angular momentum. Some of these redistributions increase Earth's rotational speed, shorten the solar day and oppose tidal friction. For example, glacial rebound shortens the solar day by 0.6 ms/century and the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake is thought to have shortened it by 2.68 microseconds. It is evident from the figure that the Earth's rotation has slowed at a decreasing rate since the initiation of the current system in 1971, and the rate of leap second insertions has therefore been decreasing.
Future of leap seconds
The TAI and UT1 time scales are precisely defined, the former by atomic clocks (and thus independent of Earth's rotation) and the latter by astronomical observations (that measure actual planetary rotation and thus the solar time at the Greenwich meridian). UTC (on which civil time is usually based) is a compromise, stepping with atomic seconds but periodically reset by a leap second to match UT1.
The irregularity and unpredictability of UTC leap seconds is problematic for several areas, especially computing (see below). With increasing requirements for accuracy in automation systems and high-speed trading, this raises a number of issues, since a leap second represents a jump as much as a million times larger than the accuracy required for industry clocks. Consequently, the long-standing practice of inserting leap seconds is under review by the relevant international standards body.
International proposals for elimination of leap seconds
On July 5, 2005, the Head of the Earth Orientation Center of the IERS sent a notice to IERS Bulletins C and D subscribers, soliciting comments on a U.S. proposal before the ITU-R Study Group 7's WP7-A to eliminate leap seconds from the UTC broadcast standard before 2008 (the ITU-R is responsible for the definition of UTC). It was expected to be considered in November 2005, but the discussion has since been postponed. Under the proposal, leap seconds would be technically replaced by leap hours as an attempt to satisfy the legal requirements of several ITU-R member nations that civil time be astronomically tied to the Sun.
A number of objections to the proposal have been raised. Dr. P. Kenneth Seidelmann, editor of the Explanatory Supplement to the Astronomical Almanac, wrote a letter lamenting the lack of consistent public information about the proposal and adequate justification. Steve Allen of the University of California, Santa Cruz cited what he claimed to be the large impact on astronomers in a Science News article. He has an extensive online site devoted to the issues and the history of leap seconds, including a set of references about the proposal and arguments against it.
At the 2014 General Assembly of the International Union of Radio Scientists (URSI), Dr. Demetrios Matsakis, the United States Naval Observatory's Chief Scientist for Time Services, presented the reasoning in favor of the redefinition and rebuttals to the arguments made against it. He stressed the practical inability of software programmers to allow for the fact that leap seconds make time appear to go backwards, particularly when most of them do not even know that leap seconds exist. The possibility of leap seconds being a hazard to navigation was presented, as well as the observed effects on commerce.
The United States formulated its position on this matter based upon the advice of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which solicited comments from the general public. This position is in favor of the redefinition.
In 2011, Chunhao Han of the Beijing Global Information Center of Application and Exploration said China had not decided what its vote would be in January 2012, but some Chinese scholars consider it important to maintain a link between civil and astronomical time due to Chinese tradition. The 2012 vote was ultimately deferred. At an ITU/BIPM-sponsored workshop on the leap second, Dr. Han expressed his personal view in favor of abolishing the leap second, and similar support for the redefinition was again expressed by Dr. Han, along with other Chinese timekeeping scientists, at the URSI General Assembly in 2014.
At a special session of the Asia-Pacific Telecommunity Meeting on February 10, 2015, Chunhao Han indicated China was now supporting the elimination of future leap seconds, as were all the other presenting national representatives (from Australia, Japan, and the Republic of Korea). At this meeting, Bruce Warrington (NMI, Australia) and Tsukasa Iwama (NICT, Japan) indicated particular concern for the financial markets due to the leap second occurring in the middle of a workday in their part of the world. Subsequent to the CPM15-2 meeting in March/April 2015 the draft gives four methods which the WRC-15 might use to satisfy Resolution 653 from WRC-12.
Arguments against the proposal include the unknown expense of such a major change and the fact that universal time will no longer correspond to mean solar time. It is also answered that two timescales that do not follow leap seconds are already available, International Atomic Time (TAI) and Global Positioning System (GPS) time. Computers, for example, could use these and convert to UTC or local civil time as necessary for output. Inexpensive GPS timing receivers are readily available, and the satellite broadcasts include the necessary information to convert GPS time to UTC. It is also easy to convert GPS time to TAI, as TAI is always exactly 19 seconds ahead of GPS time. Examples of systems based on GPS time include the CDMA digital cellular systems IS-95 and CDMA2000. In general, computer systems use UTC and synchronize their clocks using Network Time Protocol (NTP). Systems that cannot tolerate disruptions caused by leap seconds can base their time on TAI and use Precision Time Protocol. However, the BIPM has pointed out that this proliferation of timescales leads to confusion.
At the 47th meeting of the Civil Global Positioning System Service Interface Committee in Fort Worth, Texas in September 2007, it was announced that a mailed vote would go out on stopping leap seconds. The plan for the vote was:
- April 2008: ITU Working Party 7A will submit to ITU Study Group 7 project recommendation on stopping leap seconds
- During 2008, Study Group 7 will conduct a vote through mail among member states
- October 2011: The ITU-R released its status paper, Status of Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) study in ITU-R, in preparation for the January 2012 meeting in Geneva; the paper reported that, to date, in response to the UN agency's 2010 and 2011 web based surveys requesting input on the topic, it had received 16 responses from the 192 Member States with "13 being in favor of change, 3 being contrary."
- January 2012: The ITU makes a decision.
In January 2012, rather than decide yes or no per this plan, the ITU decided to postpone a decision on leap seconds to the World Radiocommunication Conference in November 2015. At this conference, it was again decided to continue using leap seconds, pending further study and consideration at the next conference in 2023.
In October 2014, Dr. Włodzimierz Lewandowski, chair of the timing subcommittee of the Civil GPS Interface Service Committee and a member of the ESA Navigation Program Board, presented a CGSIC-endorsed resolution to the ITU that supported the redefinition and described leap seconds as a "hazard to navigation".
Some of the objections to the proposed change have been answered by its opponents. For example, Dr. Felicitas Arias, who, as Director of the International Bureau of Weights and Measures (BIPM)'s Time, Frequency, and Gravimetry Department, is responsible for generating UTC, noted in a press release that the drift of about one minute every 60–90 years could be compared to the 16-minute annual variation between true solar time and mean solar time, the one hour offset by use of daylight time, and the several-hours offset in certain geographically extra-large time zones.
Issues created by insertion (or removal) of leap seconds
Calculation of time differences and sequence of events
To compute the elapsed time in seconds between two given UTC dates requires the consultation of a table of leap seconds, which needs to be updated whenever a new leap second is announced. Such a table is currently not available from an official, secure source. Since leap seconds are known only 6 months in advance, time intervals for UTC dates farther in the future cannot be computed.
Missing leap seconds announcement
Although BIPM announces a leap second 6 months in advance, most time distribution systems (SNTP, IRIG-B, PTP) announce leap seconds at most 12 hours in advance, sometimes only in the last minute and some even not at all (DNP 03). Clocks that are not regularly synchronized can miss a leap second, but still can claim to be perfectly synchronized.
Not all clocks implement leap seconds in the same manner. Leap seconds in Unix time are commonly implemented by repeating the last second of the day, or adding a 61st second to the last minute. Network Time Protocol (SNTP) freezes time during the leap second, some time servers declare "alarm condition". Other schemes smear time in the vicinity of a leap second.
Binary representation of the leap second
While the textual representation of leap seconds is defined by BIPM as "23:59:60", most computer operating systems and most time distribution systems derive this human-readable text from a binary counter indicating the number of seconds elapsed since an arbitrary epoch; for instance, since 1970-01-01 00:00:00 in Unix machines or since 1900-01-01 00:00:00 in NTP. This counter has no indicator that a leap second has been inserted, therefore two seconds in sequence will have the same counter value. Some computer operating systems, in particular Linux, assign to the leap second the counter value of the preceding, 23:59:59 second (59-59-0 sequence), while other computers (and the IRIG-B time distribution) assign to the leap second the counter value of the next, 00:00:00 second (59-0-0 sequence). Since there is no standard governing this sequence, the time stamp of values sampled at exacty the same time can vary by one second. This may explain flaws in time-critical systems that rely on time-stamped values.
Textual representation of the leap second
The textual representation is not always accepted. Entering "2016-12-31 23:59:60" in a POSIX converter will fail and XML will reject such entry as "invalid time". This can cause an exception status in application programs.
Other reported problems associated with the leap second
A number of organizations reported problems caused by flawed software following the June 30, 2012, leap second. Among the sites which reported problems were Reddit (Apache Cassandra), Mozilla (Hadoop), Qantas, and various sites running Linux.
Older versions of Motorola Oncore VP, UT, GT, and M12 GPS receivers had a software bug that would cause a single timestamp to be off by a day if no leap second was scheduled for 256 weeks. On November 28, 2003, this happened. At midnight, the receivers with this firmware reported November 29, 2003 for one second and then reverted to November 28, 2003.
Older Trimble GPS receivers had a software flaw that would insert a leap second immediately after the GPS constellation started broadcasting the next leap second insertion time (some months in advance of the actual leap second), rather than waiting for the next leap second to happen. This left the receiver's time off by a second in the interim.
Older Datum Tymeserve 2100 GPS receivers and Symmetricom Tymeserve 2100 receivers also have a similar flaw to that of the older Trimble GPS receivers, with the time being off by one second. The advance announcement of the leap second is applied as soon as the message is received, instead of waiting for the correct date. A workaround has been described and tested, but if the GPS system rebroadcasts the announcement, or the unit is powered off, the problem will occur again.
The NTP packet includes a flag that informs the user that a leap second is imminent. However, NTP servers have never all set their flags correctly on a December 31 or June 30 since monitoring began in 2008. Some NTP servers responded with the wrong time for up to a day after a leap second insertion. Hackers may have exploited this vulnerability. Detailed studies of the leap seconds of 2015 and 2016 show widespread errors in flags and times, even on the Stratum-1 servers that anchor the NTP server network.
Four different brands of marketed navigational receivers that use data from GPS or Galileo along with the Chinese BeiDou satellites, and even some receivers that use BeiDou satellites alone, were found to implement leap seconds one day early. This was traced to the fact that BeiDou numbers the days of the week from 0 to 6, while GPS and Galileo number them from 1 to 7. The problem was found to exist in commercial simulators that are used by manufacturers to test their equipment.
The effect of leap seconds on the commercial sector has been described as "a nightmare". Because financial markets are vulnerable to both technical and legal leap second problems, the Intercontinental Exchange, parent body to 7 clearing houses and 11 stock exchanges including the New York Stock Exchange, ceased operations for 61 minutes at the time of the June 30, 2015 leap second.
Despite the publicity given to the 2015 leap second, Internet network failures occurred due to the vulnerability of at least one class of router. Also, interruptions of around 40 minutes' duration occurred with Twitter, Instagram, Pinterest, Netflix, Amazon, and Apple's music streaming series Beats 1.
Several versions of the Cisco Systems NEXUS 5000 Series Operating System NX-OS (versions 5.0, 5.1, 5.2) are affected.
The 2015 leap second also affected the Altea airlines reservation system used by Qantas and Virgin Australia.
Cloudflare was affected by the 2016 leap second. Its DNS resolver implementation calculated a negative number when subtracting two timestamps obtained from the Go programming language's
time.Now() function, which then used only a real-time clock source. This could have been avoided by using a monotonic clock source, which has since been added to Go 1.9.
There were concerns that farming equipment using GPS during harvests occurring on December 31, 2016, would be affected by the 2016 leap second. GPS navigation uses the linear GPS time scale, as a one-second leap would cause a location error of up to 460 meters (1⁄4 nautical mile).
Workarounds for leap second problems
The most obvious workaround is to use the TAI scale for all operational purposes and convert to UTC for human-readable text. UTC can always be derived from TAI with a suitable table of leap seconds, the reverse is unsure. The SMTPE video/audio industry standards body selected TAI for deriving time stamps of media. IEC/IEEE 60802 (Time sensitive networks) specifies TAI for all operations. Grid automation is planning to switch to TAI for global distribution of events in electrical grids. Bluetooth mesh networking also uses TAI.
Instead of inserting a leap second at the end of the day, Google servers implement a "leap smear", extending seconds slightly over a time window prior to the leap second. Amazon followed a similar, but slightly different, pattern for the introduction of the June 30, 2015 leap second, leading to another case of the proliferation of timescales. They later released an NTP service for EC2 instances which performs leap smearing.
It has been proposed that media clients using the Real-time Transport Protocol inhibit generation or use of NTP timestamps during the leap second and the second preceding it.
NIST has established a special NTP time server to deliver UT1 instead of UTC. Such a server would be particularly useful in the event the ITU resolution passes and leap seconds are no longer inserted. Those astronomical observatories and other users that require UT1 could run off UT1 – although in many cases these users already download UT1-UTC from the IERS, and apply corrections in software.
- The Wall Street Journal noted that the proposal was considered by a U.S. official at the time to be a "private matter internal to the ITU."
- The FCC has posted its received comments, which can be found using their search engine for proceeding 04–286 and limiting the "received period" to those between January 27 and February 18, 2014 inclusive.
- In addition to publishing the video of the special session, the Australian Communications and Media Authority has a transcript of that session and a web page with draft content of the Conference Preparatory Meeting report and solutions for ITU-R WRC-15 Agenda Item 1.14.
- "IERS science background". Frankfurt am Main: IERS. 2013. Archived from the original on August 29, 2016. Retrieved August 6, 2016.
- Gambis, Danie (January 5, 2015). "Bulletin C 49". Paris: IERS. Archived from the original on May 30, 2015. Retrieved January 5, 2015.
- James Vincent (January 7, 2015). "2015 is getting an extra second and that's a bit of a problem for the internet". The Verge. Archived from the original on March 17, 2017.
- Ptolemy; G. J. Toomer (1998). Ptolemy's Alemagest. Toomer, G. J. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. pp. 6–7, 23, 211–216. ISBN 978-0-691-00260-6.
- al-Biruni (1879). The chronology of ancient nations: an English version of the Arabic text of the Athâr-ul-Bâkiya of Albîrûnî, or "Vestiges of the Past". Sachau, C. Edward. Oriental Translation Fund of Great Britain & Ireland. pp. 141–149, 158, 408, 410. Archived from the original on November 14, 2017. Used for mean new moons, both in Hebrew calendar cycles and in equivalent astronomical cycles.
- Everett, J. D. (1875). Illustrations of the centimetre-gramme-second (C.G.S.) system of units. Taylor and Francis. p. 83. Archived from the original on November 14, 2017.
- Pearce, J. A. (1928). "The Variability of the Rotation of the Earth". Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada. 22: 145–147. Bibcode:1928JRASC..22..145P.
- Seidelmann, P. Kenneth, ed. (1992). Explanatory Supplement to the Astronomical Almanac. Mill Valley, California: University Science Books. pp. 79–80. ISBN 0-935702-68-7. Archived from the original on November 14, 2017.
- "Leap Seconds". Time Service Department, United States Naval Observatory. Archived from the original on February 7, 2012. Retrieved December 27, 2008.
- Wm Markowitz (1988) 'Comparisons of ET (Solar), ET (Lunar), UT and TDT', in (eds.) A K Babcock & G A Wilkins, 'The Earth's Rotation and Reference Frames for Geodesy and Geophysics', IAU Symposia #128 (1988), at pp 413–418.
- DD McCarthy and AK Babcock (1986), "The Length of the Day Since 1658", Phys. Earth Planet Inter., No. 44, pp. 281–292
- RA Nelson, DD McCarthy, S Malys, J Levine, B Guinot, HF Fliegel, RL Beard, and TR Bartholomew, (2001) "The Leap Second: its History and Possible Future" (2001), Metrologia 38, pp. 509–529
- Stephenson, F.R.; Morrison, L.V. (1995). "Long-term fluctuations in the Earth's rotation: 700 BC to AD 1990". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London A. 351 (1695): 165–202. Bibcode:1995RSPTA.351..165S. doi:10.1098/rsta.1995.0028.
- McCarthy, D D; Hackman, C; Nelson, R A (2008). "The Physical Basis of the Leap Second". Astronomical Journal. 136 (5): 1906–1908. Bibcode:2008AJ....136.1906M. doi:10.1088/0004-6256/136/5/1906.
- Gambis, Daniel (July 4, 2008). "Bulletin C 36". Paris: IERS EOP PC, Observatoire de Paris. Archived from the original on October 6, 2009. Retrieved April 18, 2010.
- Andrea Thompson (December 8, 2008). "2008 Will Be Just a Second Longer". Live Science. Archived from the original on December 12, 2008. Retrieved December 29, 2008.
- "International Telecommunications Union Radiocommunications sector recommendation TF.460-6: Standard-frequency and time-signal emissions". Archived from the original on October 17, 2016. Retrieved February 9, 2017.
- Steve Allen (June 8, 2011). "Extrapolations of the difference (TI – UT1)". ucolick.org. Archived from the original on March 4, 2016. Retrieved February 29, 2016.
- Cook-Anderson, Gretchen; Beasley, Dolores (January 10, 2005). "NASA Details Earthquake Effects on the Earth". National Aeronautics and Space Administration (press release). Archived from the original on January 27, 2011.
- "Why the U.S. Wants To End the Link Between Time and Sun". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on November 7, 2017. Retrieved October 31, 2017.
- "Leap second talks are postponed". BBC News. Archived from the original on November 7, 2017. Retrieved October 31, 2017.
- Kenneth Seidelmann. "UTC redefinition or change". Archived from the original on January 10, 2006.
- Cowen, Ron. (April 22, 2006). "To Leap or Not to Leap: Scientists debate a timely issue". Science News. Archived from the original on May 2, 2006. Retrieved May 19, 2006.
- Steve Allen. "UTC might be redefined without Leap Seconds". Archived from the original on June 3, 2017. Retrieved October 31, 2017.
- "nc1985wp7a Proposed US Contribution to ITU-R WP 7A". Archived from the original on January 1, 2017. Retrieved October 31, 2017.
- Demetrios Matsakis (August 18, 2014). "Comments on the Debate over the Proposal to Redefine UTC" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on February 8, 2017. Retrieved October 31, 2017.
- "U.S. Proposals". National Telecommunications and Information Administration. Archived from the original on July 29, 2014.
- "FCC Seeks Comment On Recommendations Approved By The Advisory Committee For The 2015 World Radiocommunication Conference" (PDF). Federal Communications Commission. January 28, 2014. Archived (PDF) from the original on July 29, 2014.
- "Preliminary Views and Proposals Regarding WRC-15 Agenda Items" (PPT). Organization of American States. Archived from the original on July 29, 2014.
- "Search for Filings Results". fcc.gov. Archived from the original on July 1, 2015.
- Merali, Zeeya. (November 8, 2011). "Time is running out for the leap second". Archived May 16, 2017, at the Wayback Machine Nature News.
- Han, Chunhao (September 19, 2013). "Conception, Definition and Realization of Time Scale in GNSS" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on September 5, 2014.
- Information Session on the WRC-15 agenda item 1.14 – Coordinated Universal Time (UTC). YouTube. April 15, 2015. Archived from the original on November 18, 2015.
- "WRC-15 Agenda item 1.14: Coordinated Universal Time (UTC)". acma.gov.au. Archived from the original on September 8, 2015.
- "RESOLUTION 653 (WRC-12) Future of the Coordinated Universal Time time-scale" (PDF). International Telecommunications Union. Archived (PDF) from the original on July 2, 2015.
- CCTF Strategy Document (PDF), International Bureau of Weights and Measures, July 29, 2013, pp. 19–24, archived (PDF) from the original on July 28, 2014
- "47th CGSIC Meeting – Timing Subcommittee" (PDF). September 25, 2007. p. 9. Archived from the original (PDF) on June 14, 2011. Retrieved November 18, 2007.
- "WP7D – Status of Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) study in ITU-R" (Word 2007). International Telecommunication Union – Radiocommunication Sector (ITU-R) Release: Pg.2 (Pgs.2). October 4, 2011. Archived from the original on March 23, 2014. Retrieved October 24, 2011.
To date, the BR received replies from 16 different Member States for the latest survey (out of a total of 192 Member States, 55 of which participate in the formation of UTC) – 13 being in favor of the change, 3 being contrary.
- "Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) to retain 'leap second'". International Telecommunications Union. November 19, 2015. Archived from the original on January 29, 2016. Retrieved January 12, 2016.
- "CGSIC opinion on the redefinition of UTC now under consideration by the International Telecommunications Union (ITU)". Archived from the original on October 23, 2014.
- "The proposed redefinition of Coordinated Universal Time, UTC" (PDF) (Press release). BIPM. October 13, 2011. Archived (PDF) from the original on January 18, 2015.
- Kevin Gross (March 2014), RTP and Leap Seconds, RFC 7164
- Christopher Pascoe (September 15, 2011). "Time, technology and leaping seconds". Google. Archived from the original on July 2, 2012. Retrieved July 2, 2012.
- "'Leap Second' Bug Wreaks Havoc Across Web". Wired. July 1, 2012. Archived from the original on March 28, 2014.
- "'Leap second crashes Qantas and leaves passengers stranded'". News Limited. July 1, 2012. Archived from the original on July 1, 2012.
- "Anyone else experiencing high rates of Linux server crashes during a leap second day?". Serverfault.com. Archived from the original on July 9, 2012.
- "256-Week Leap Second Bug". July 2, 2013. Archived from the original on March 4, 2016.
- "Motorola Oncore receivers and Leap Second bug". July 2, 2013. Archived from the original on January 18, 2013.
- "Leap-second problem with older GPS receivers". November 19, 2014. Archived from the original on November 29, 2014.
- "How Leap Seconds Can Interfere with GNSS Receivers". May 13, 2015. Archived from the original on March 6, 2016.
- "Symmetricom TymServe 2100-GPS currently fails with GPS offset". time-nuts (Mailing list). Archived from the original on February 17, 2015.
- "Leap Second Implementation Confuses Some Receivers". GPS World. February 2, 2015. Archived from the original on May 5, 2015.
- Malone, David. "NTP Leap Bits". Archived from the original on July 22, 2014. Retrieved December 1, 2019.
- Malone, David (2016). "The Leap Second Behaviour of NTP Servers" (PDF). Proc.Traffic Monitoring and Analysis workshop. Archived (PDF) from the original on October 23, 2016. Retrieved October 23, 2016.
- "NTP Events". satsignal.eu. Archived from the original on July 18, 2014.
- "WARNING: someone's faking a leap second tonight". Archived from the original on July 27, 2014.
- Marco Marongiu (July 31, 2012). "WARNING: someone's faking a leap second tonight". Newsgroup: comp.protocols.time.ntp. Archived from the original on January 22, 2011.
- Cao, Yi, Veitch, Darryl, ‘’Network Timing, Weathering the 2016 Leap Second’’. IEEE Infocom 2016, Honolulu, USA, April 15–19, 2018.
- Veitch, Darryl, Vijayalayan, Kanthaiah, ‘’Network Timing and the 2015 Leap Second’’. Proc. of PAM 2016, Heraklion, Crete, Greece, March 31 --April 1, 2016.
- "BeiDou Numbering Presents Leap-Second Issue". GPS World. March 3, 2015. Archived from the original on March 6, 2015.
- Sellwood, Dick. "Just A Second". www.eejournal.com. Electronic Engineering Journal. Archived from the original on September 28, 2015. Retrieved September 27, 2015.
- "ICE Market Update – Leap Second Impact". Intercontinental Exchange. Archived from the original on May 5, 2015.
- Shulman, Eden. "Beta Boston". Boston Globe. Archived from the original on September 29, 2015. Retrieved September 27, 2015.
- Sarah Knapton (July 1, 2015). "Leap Second confuses Twitter and Android". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on October 6, 2015.
- "Cisco Bug: CSCub38654 – N5K: Switch hang/lock up may occur due to Leap second update". Cisco. July 24, 2015. Archived from the original on March 8, 2016.
- 11:33, August 8, 2016 at; tweet_btn(), Gavin Clarke. "Power cut crashes Delta's worldwide flight update systems". Archived from the original on January 4, 2017. Retrieved January 3, 2017.
- "How and why the leap second affected Cloudflare DNS". Cloudflare. January 1, 2017. Archived from the original on January 2, 2017.
- "#12914 runtime: time: expose monotonic clock source". GitHub. Archived from the original on March 20, 2017. Retrieved January 5, 2017.
- "Got a second — the world time needs it". ABC Rural. December 30, 2016. Archived from the original on January 2, 2017. Retrieved January 3, 2017.
- Paul Briscoe (May 14, 2013). "Network-Based Timing and Synchronization" (PDF).
- "Mesh Model Bluetooth® Specification" (PDF download). Bluetooth Technology Website. July 13, 2017. Retrieved December 14, 2019. See sections 5.1.1 and A.1.
- Jeff Barr (May 18, 2015). "Look Before You Leap – The Coming Leap Second and AWS (Updated)". Amazon Web Services. Archived from the original on May 19, 2015.
- Randall Hunt (November 29, 2017). "Keeping Time With Amazon Time Sync Service". Amazon Web Services. Retrieved March 8, 2018.
- Kevin Gross (June 21, 2012). "RTP and Leap Seconds". Internet Engineering Task Force. Archived from the original on December 16, 2012. Retrieved July 2, 2012.
- "UT1 NTP Time Dissemination". Retrieved August 31, 2019.
- Wallace, Patrick (2003). The UTC Problem and its Solution (PDF). Proceedings of Colloquium on the UTC Time Scale. Torino. Archived (PDF) from the original on January 18, 2015.
- Luzum, Brian (2013). "The Role of the IERS in the Leap Second" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on July 15, 2014.
- Ahuja, Anjana (October 30, 2005). "Savouring the last leap second in history". New Straits Times, p. F10.
- Grossman, Wendy M. (November 2005). "Wait a Second". Scientific American, pp. 12–13.
- Finkleman, David; et al. "The Future of Time: UTC and the Leap Second". American Scientist. 99 (4): 312–319. arXiv:1106.3141. doi:10.1511/2011.91.1.
- Kamp, Poul-Henning (2011). "The One-Second War". Communications of the ACM. 54 (5): 44–48. doi:10.1145/1941487.1941505.
- McCarthy, Dennis D. & Seidelmann, P. Kenneth. (2009). TIME From Earth Rotation to Atomic Physics. Weinheim: Wiley-VCH.
|Wikimedia Commons has media related to Leap second.|
- IERS Bulletin C (leap second announcements)
- LeapSecond.com – A web site dedicated to precise time and frequency
- NIST FAQ about leap year and leap second
- The leap second: its history and possible future
- Leap Seconds, U.S. Naval Observatory
- "Support for the leap second". Microsoft Support. October 4, 2018.
- Dan Cuomo (October 17, 2018). "Leap Seconds for the IT Pro: What you need to know". Windows Server - Networking Blog.
- Travis Luke (October 24, 2018). "Leap Seconds for the AppDev: What you should know". Windows Server - Networking Blog.