On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 8:37 AM, Victor Kuarsingh <victor.kuarsingh@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 2013-02-27 4:53 AM, "Brian E Carpenter" <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
+1. UTC (in addition to whatever local time based on venue) is the
>On 27/02/2013 09:28, Brian Trammell wrote:
>> On Feb 27, 2013, at 10:20 AM, Tim Chown <tjc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>> On 26 Feb 2013, at 20:28, Martin Rex <mrex@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I have a recurring remote participation problem with the
>>>> IETF Meeting Agendas, because it specifies the time of WG meeting
>>>>slots
>>>> in local time (local to the IETF Meeting), but does not give the
>>>> local time zone *anywhere*.
>>>>
>>>> I would appreciate if the local time zone indication would be added
>>>> like somewhere at the top of the page, to each IETF meeting agenda.
>>> So in this interesting discussion of UTC, Martin has actually made an
>>>excellent point. Having UTC listings for the agenda would be very
>>>helpful, or an alternative agenda showing UTC.
>>
>> +1. Given our high remote participation, I put UTC in the agenda for
>>the MILE WG anyway (usually correctly, even). And given that the IETF
>>often meets on one side or another of the DST change in local time,
>>having an unchanging time reference would be helpful even for attendees.
>
>UTC time *and* date please, for people in whichever hemisphere happens to
>be
>opposite the IETF.
>
> Brian
clearest way of specifying a time. It's easily converted into other time
zones by those who need to do so.
Regards,
Victor K
>