Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 12:43:04PM +0200, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > > Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 12:50:13PM +0000, Bogaert, Bart (Nokia - BE) > > > wrote: > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > In order to correctly compile (using confdc) we also need to import > > > > iana-entity for the identities defined in there. However this is > > > > leading a > > > > circular dependency: > > > > > > > > 1. Iana-entity imports ietf-entity (to 'resolve' > > > > entity-physical-class) > > > > > > > > 2. Ietf-entity imports iana-entity (to obtain the indentities > > > > defined > > > > in there) > > > > > > > > One way to solve this is to move the definition of entity-physical-class > > > > from ietf-entity to iana-entity which would resolve the fact that > > > > iana-entity requires an import of ietf-entity (ietf-entity needs to > > > > import > > > > iana-entity anyhow, so it can also pick the typedef from the same module > > > > too). > > > > > > I think moving the definition of entity-physical-class into > > > iana-entity makes sense. > > > > Ok. It feels a bit backwards to me though, but I can see the value of > > having the iana module self-contained. > > > > Well, it may look backwards if people want to reuse the base identity > but none of the IANA assigned identities - but then it might be good > if people at least look at IANA assigned identities. Or are there other > reasons why you think this may be looking 'backwards'?
I makes ietf-entity dependent on iana-entity, since the base identity is defined in iana-entity. But OTOH, even if we solved that, ietf-entity is dependent on iana-entity b/c of the value 'sensor'. So in this case it is probably fine, but I'm not sure about the general idea. /martin _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
