On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 10:53:38AM +0200, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> It seems that some people prefer the term 'hardware' instead of
> 'entity' for things that are ... hardware.
>
> Should we make this change in the document? Specifically, the
> top-level node 'entity' would then be renamed to 'hardware'. Probably
> other changes as well, but we can start with this one.
Well, 'hardware' would equate 'physical entity' but not 'entity'. ;-)
I agree that the ENTITY-MIB terminology is generally confusing (except
for those who got used to it). Changing the nomenclature will be a
bigger thing that just renaming the top-level, the 'physical-entity'
would likely become a 'component', e.g.
module: ietf-hardware
+--ro hardware-state
| +--ro last-change? yang:date-and-time
| +--ro component* [name]
| +--ro name string
| +--ro class? identityref
:
:
+--rw hardware
+--rw component* [name]
+--rw name string
:
and there are more 'entity' words to replace (feature names plus many
edits in the texts). I believe it is worth to move to a terminology
that is far easier to understand and use; as long as the relationship
to the old MIB modules is clearly documented we are fine I think.
/js
PS: We had a discussion in a separate thread whether base identities
of identities defined in IANA module should not be defined in the
IANA modules themself; this allows reuse by just importing the
IANA module. Perhaps this applies here as well.
--
Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
