Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 think it's ok to change both the name and descriptions to 'hardware'. > I guess the question is how far we go > with renaming. We also have features called entity-state and > entity-sensor. I think it makes sense to rename them as well. Then the word "entity" would be used wwhen referring to the MIBs. > (Also the short page title should probably be changed > from 'YANG Entity Management' to 'YANG Hardware Management'.) Yes, I found and fixed this bug yesterday. /martin _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
