> On Jul 29, 2016, at 07:32, Juergen Schoenwaelder
> <j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
>
> I think moving the definition of entity-physical-class into
> iana-entity makes sense. Perhaps this is generally a good pattern to
> follow for base identities for which IANA maintains derived
> identities. The required import should not be a problem; the
> ENTITY-MIB also imports from IANA-ENTITY-MIB.
I would be supportive of changes that make IANA maintained registries
self-contained. It seems to me that this would reduce overall overlap between
modules.
For example, right now, iana-if-type uses ietf-interfaces to define
interface-type. This means that third-party modules cannot exploit the IANA
registry without also including the IETF module. This does not seem ideal if
one simply wants to ensure that the registry can be used.
r.
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
