On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 09:38:35AM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > Hi, > > William Lupton <[email protected]> wrote: > > The current draft-ietf-netmod-entity-01 defines ietf-hardware and > > iana-entity modules. Is it intended that iana-entity will become > > iana-hardware? Thanks, W. > > I don't have a strong opinion, but it probably makes sense. In the > MIB, the word "entity" is just present in the MIB name: > > IANA-ENTITY-MIB defines the TC IANAPhysicalClass > > So in YANG we can do: > > iana-hardware defines the base identity physical-class (+ derived > identities) >
Should the base identity be called 'entity-physical-class'? Or would 'hardware-class' be more appropriate? OK, all the descriptions talk about 'physical entity class'. I guess the question is how far we go with renaming. We also have features called entity-state and entity-sensor. (Also the short page title should probably be changed from 'YANG Entity Management' to 'YANG Hardware Management'.) /js -- 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
