Don’t we have something similar with iana-if-types importing ietf-interfaces? Not circular, but definitely odd.
The base identity of interface-type is defined in ietf-interfaces, but the interface-types are defined in iana-if-type.yang. For anyone, including openconfig-interfaces, wanting to use any of the interface-types has to not only import iana-if-types but ietf-interfaces also. As a general rule, would it not be better to have the base identity and the different types of that identity in the same file? > On Aug 26, 2016, at 5:32 AM, Martin Bjorklund <[email protected]> wrote: > > Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email protected] > <mailto:[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] <mailto:[email protected]> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod > <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod> Mahesh Jethanandani [email protected]
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
