Re: [YANG] [sub]module name uniqueness

Phil Shafer <phil@juniper.net> Sat, 05 April 2008 20:41 UTC

Return-Path: <yang-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: yang-archive@optimus.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-yang-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 608B53A6C0C; Sat, 5 Apr 2008 13:41:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: yang@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: yang@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D23713A6C85 for <yang@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 5 Apr 2008 13:41:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.156
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.156 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.443, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZE2VzlxuWdiv for <yang@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 5 Apr 2008 13:41:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod7og103.obsmtp.com (exprod7og103.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.159]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC04A3A6BC0 for <yang@ietf.org>; Sat, 5 Apr 2008 13:41:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from source ([66.129.224.36]) by exprod7ob103.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP; Sat, 05 Apr 2008 13:41:27 PDT
Received: from magenta.juniper.net ([172.17.27.123]) by emailsmtp56.jnpr.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Sat, 5 Apr 2008 13:40:41 -0700
Received: from idle.juniper.net (idleski.juniper.net [172.25.4.26]) by magenta.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id m35KeeD78950; Sat, 5 Apr 2008 13:40:40 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from phil@idle.juniper.net)
Received: from idle.juniper.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by idle.juniper.net (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m35KdRXW096901; Sat, 5 Apr 2008 20:39:27 GMT (envelope-from phil@idle.juniper.net)
Message-Id: <200804052039.m35KdRXW096901@idle.juniper.net>
To: Andy Bierman <ietf@andybierman.com>
In-reply-to: <47F70BE9.7090109@andybierman.com>
Date: Sat, 05 Apr 2008 16:39:27 -0400
From: Phil Shafer <phil@juniper.net>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Apr 2008 20:40:41.0456 (UTC) FILETIME=[5045BF00:01C8975D]
Cc: yang <yang@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [YANG] [sub]module name uniqueness
X-BeenThere: yang@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: YANG modeling Language for NETCONF <yang.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yang>, <mailto:yang-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/yang>
List-Post: <mailto:yang@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:yang-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yang>, <mailto:yang-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: yang-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: yang-bounces@ietf.org

Andy Bierman writes:
>There are 1000s of SMI modules and generating a
>unique name with at most 64 unique characters has
>not been a real problem in 2 decades.

I'm no SNMP dude, so I'll take your word for it, but I've seen a
number of vendor mibs with names like "foo-mib", which seems to be
begging for a collision with something else's foo mib.

My guess would have been that this is fairly common.  Vendor A
invents "foo" technology, names the mib with the obvious "foo-mib".
Other vendors follow, naming their mibs with "foo-mib" so they look
like they invented "foo".  The IETF standardizes the foo mib and
ends up calling the standard "foo-mib", because, well, no one else
matters  ;^)

Thanks,
 Phil
_______________________________________________
YANG mailing list
YANG@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yang