IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: IETF must use only UTC in its announcements (Was: Live Streaming of the IETF 88 Technical Plenary

Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr> Wed, 30 October 2013 08:39 UTC

Return-Path: <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFD7811E832E for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 01:39:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.267
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.267 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.018, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FCv1+Xhwi5kq for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 01:39:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx4.nic.fr (mx4.nic.fr [192.134.4.12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 624D511E833C for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 01:38:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx4.nic.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx4.nic.fr (Postfix) with SMTP id 579C428017C; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 09:38:21 +0100 (CET)
Received: from relay1.nic.fr (relay1.nic.fr [192.134.4.162]) by mx4.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5254D280046; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 09:38:21 +0100 (CET)
Received: from bortzmeyer.nic.fr (batilda.nic.fr [IPv6:2001:67c:1348:8::7:113]) by relay1.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46E284C007C; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 09:37:51 +0100 (CET)
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 09:37:51 +0100
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
To: Ross Finlayson <finlayson@live555.com>
Subject: Re: IETF must use only UTC in its announcements (Was: Live Streaming of the IETF 88 Technical Plenary
Message-ID: <20131030083751.GB27804@nic.fr>
References: <87879E7D-A55B-4A88-80B8-B503C89E52CB@iab.org> <20131030081355.GA23990@nic.fr> <ADB30B3C-6A91-416D-AF72-4C22A29D6C87@live555.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ADB30B3C-6A91-416D-AF72-4C22A29D6C87@live555.com>
X-Operating-System: Debian GNU/Linux 7.1
X-Kernel: Linux 3.2.0-4-686-pae i686
Organization: NIC France
X-URL: http://www.nic.fr/
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Cc: IAB Chair <iab-chair@iab.org>, IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 08:39:22 -0000

On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 01:28:35AM -0700,
 Ross Finlayson <finlayson@live555.com> wrote 
 a message of 16 lines which said:

> I would prefer SHOULD rather than MUST (or must) :-)

What could be a good reason to use the local time, when it is an event
broadcasted on the Internet? For a physical meeting, I can imagine
such good reasons but for a network one?

v2.31.3 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status