Le mar. 10 mars 2020 à 18:46, Mark Brown broonie@kernel.org a écrit :

On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 05:37:29PM +0000, Daniel Thompson wrote:

...

On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 05:35:40PM +0100, Francois Ozog wrote:

...

...

Thanks Leif for the links. I tend to like the ETSI one because it is somewhat complete on necessary english grammar stuff. But I am flexible, important we state explicitly the reference document and we use the language constructs.

...

Does ETSI offer us "features" that are missing from RFC 2119.

...

Personally I would favour RFC 2119 simply because it is so much better known than the ETSI drafting rules.

...

If you cite RFC 2119 and I don't have to go and read anything... and even if I did it is super concise and quick to read.

...

Cite ETSI drafting rules, clause 3 and I have to put in a lot more effort.

The RFC 2119 usage of "MUST" is also a more standard English usage (in that people are more likely to be familiar with it) than the ETSI SHALL so there's a bit of a comprehensibility win.

RFC2119 sold on my side ;-)

--

François-Frédéric Ozog | *Director Linaro Edge & Fog Computing Group* T: +33.67221.6485 francois.ozog@linaro.org | Skype: ffozog