Subject: [netmod] entity naming question

From: Martin Bjorklund <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2016 10:53:38 +0200 (CEST)

Hi,

It seems that some people prefer the term 'hardware' instead of
'entity' for things that are ... hardware.

Should we make this change in the document?  Specifically, the
top-level node 'entity' would then be renamed to 'hardware'.  Probably
other changes as well, but we can start with this one.

/martin

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2016 11:23:17 +0200

> other changes as well, but we can start with this one.

Well, 'hardware' would equate 'physical entity' but not 'entity'. ;-)

I agree that the ENTITY-MIB terminology is generally confusing (except
for those who got used to it). Changing the nomenclature will be a
bigger thing that just renaming the top-level, the 'physical-entity'
would likely become a 'component', e.g.

module: ietf-hardware
   +--ro hardware-state
   |  +--ro last-change?       yang:date-and-time
   |  +--ro component* [name]
   |     +--ro name                  string
   |     +--ro class?                identityref
   :
   :
   +--rw hardware
      +--rw component* [name]
         +--rw name                  string
         :

and there are more 'entity' words to replace (feature names plus many
edits in the texts). I believe it is worth to move to a terminology
that is far easier to understand and use; as long as the relationship
to the old MIB modules is clearly documented we are fine I think.

/js

PS: We had a discussion in a separate thread whether base identities
    of identities defined in IANA module should not be defined in the
    IANA modules themself; this allows reuse by just importing the
    IANA module. Perhaps this applies here as well.

-- 
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: Phil Shafer <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2016 14:28:26 -0400

Juergen Schoenwaelder writes:
>I believe it is worth to move to a terminology

+1

Thanks,
 Phil