Subject: [netmod] BBF work depending on draft-ietf-netmod-entity-01

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 14:08:52 +0100

Dear draft-ietf-netmod-entity authors,

As mentioned by Tim Carey during the last IETF meeting, BBF work depends 
on the draft-ietf-netmod-entity-01.

Message from BBF:

    We are now in the final stages of reviewing “TR-383” “Common YANG”
    modules that have the following dependencies:

      * iana-entity
      * iana-if-type
      * ietf-hardware
      * ietf-inet-types
      * ietf-interfaces
      * ietf-system
      * ietf-yang-types

    If all goes to plan, the TR-383 modules will be published in March
    2017, but you can see that there is a dependency on iana-entity and
    ietf-hardware, which are currently taken from
    draft-ietf-netmod-entity-01. We will potentially need to reference
    draft versions?

I hope we all agree that referencing a draft version is not ideal.
Would it be possible to progress draft-ietf-netmod-entity, and therefore 
help our BBF friends?
Is the March deadline a reachable goal?

Regards, Benoit

---

From: Martin Bjorklund <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 14:57:29 +0100 (CET)

Benoit Claise <[email-masked]> wrote:
> As mentioned by Tim Carey during the last IETF meeting, BBF work
> depends on the draft-ietf-netmod-entity-01.
> 
> Message from BBF:
> 
> Would it be possible to progress draft-ietf-netmod-entity, and
> therefore help our BBF friends?

What we need is a WG discussion on the open issues.  I will send out
one mail per open issue.

> Is the March deadline a reachable goal?

Even if we started WGLC today we would not have an RFC published in
March...

/martin

---

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 15:16:40 +0100

> Even if we started WGLC today we would not have an RFC published in
That's a very pessimistic view.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc8022/history/
     2016-10-20, IETF WG state changed to "Submitted to IESG for 
Publication"
     2016-11-10, RFC 8022 published

Regards, Benoit

---

From: William Lupton <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 17:01:58 +0000

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.

---

From: Martin Bjorklund <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2016 09:38:35 +0100 (CET)

Hi,

William Lupton <[email-masked]> 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)

/martin

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2016 09:52:30 +0100

>   iana-hardware defines the base identity physical-class (+ derived

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/>

---

From: Martin Bjorklund <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2016 10:13:47 +0100 (CET)

Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 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
> 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

Yes, I found and fixed this bug yesterday.

/martin