Subject: [netmod] opinions on the "belong-to" thread

From: David Partain <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 14:32:40 +0200

Greetings all,

Contributor hat on...

The discussion in question starts at
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netmod/current/msg00755.html and
proposes adding a 'prefix' substatement to 'belongs-to' in order to allow a
submodule to be validated in isolation from its main module.

The last 15 messages or so with this subject line have nothing to do with the 
original question.

Some issues remain unresolved in this thread, such as this issue is from Andy:

  What happens if the optional 'prefix b;' is not present?
  Does that mean the module prefix MUST NOT be used for
  any local identifier (or any identifier from an 'include')?

I think it'd be good to know what people think about this, now that the issue 
isn't being discussed anymore and doesn't seem to be resolved (not to my 
satisfaction anyway).

1. Should we add the prefix substatement with relevant updates to address 
unresolved questions?
2. If you see unresolved issues, what are they?
3. Should NOT add the prefix substatement at all?

Cheers,

David
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

---

From: Martin Bjorklund <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 14:50:09 +0200 (CEST)

>   any local identifier (or any identifier from an 'include')?

Yes.  If you want to refer to something in the local submodule with a
prefix, you must declare a prefix.

> 1. Should we add the prefix substatement with relevant updates to address 

I think so.

Regardless of what we decide here, we have to address the issue in the
draft.  Currently nothing is said about local prefixes in submodules.
Adding the prefix statement to belongs-to is one option.  Another
option is to say that the prefix is found in the main module.

/martin

---

From: Phil Shafer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 10:22:59 -0400

>prefix, you must declare a prefix.

Sounds good to me.

Thanks,
 Phil