September 2008 - nml-wg - lists.ogf.org

URN urn:ogf:network
by Freek Dijkstra 28 Apr '09

28 Apr '09

Hi, Recently, I have seen a few uses of the namespace prefix urn:ogf:network. While I think a common namespace is a good idea, I just like to emphasis that this is not an official namespace. Or not yet. URN allocated by IANA: http://www.iana.org/assignments/urn-namespaces/ "urn:" is a formal namespace, and registration requires IETF consensus action. Currently, urn:ogf is not even registered, so urn:ogf: or urn:ogf:network must not be used. As I see it, we have two options: 1. Use urn:ogf:network. This first requires IETF consensus action to allocate urn:ogf to the OGF (it is not yet!), then OGF consensus action to allocation urn:ogf:network to the NML-WG. 2. Use the URI ogf.org/network as namespace. This is what is done in RDF (in RDF, http://ogf.org/network would be used, even though the HTTP protocol is not involved in any way) and does not require a standardization action. Given the status of the OGF, I have a very slight preference for the first option. However, I don't know how much more work this means. I am not present at the current OGF, but I would be interested to hear others opinions -- either those in the workgroup and the OGF at large (since option 1 requires OGF action). Note: Ronald van der Pol et al. recently created a document "Global Lightpath Identifiers Proposal", http://www.glif.is/list-archives/all/msg00062.html which discuss a similar naming problem in the GLIF organization. It is a short read and gives some insight into the available options for namespaces (even though it discusses a whole different type of identifiers). Regards, Freek

7 13

Re: [Nml-wg] URN urn:ogf:network
by Aaron Brown 25 Sep '08

25 Sep '08

On Sep 22, 2008, at 9:58 AM, Jeroen van der Ham wrote: > Hi Aaron, > > Aaron Brown wrote: >>> Martin, Jeroen, Aaron, John, Victor, others: what do you think? >> For the class definitions themselves, I think it makes sense to >> use URIs a la namespaces so we could put some documentation at >> the specified URL. > > Just to make this absolutely clear: by "URIs a la namespaces" you > mean to use a URL, abbreviated as a namespace? (So "nml:Node" where > the namespace nml has been defined previously). > It's a little bit confusing because both URNs and URLs are URIs... Correct, the URL style. mistyped when I wrote it. > > For the identifiers for individual instances, I think > > the URNs make more sense since it doesn't imply a specific method of > > access to get information about the element. > > Now this I do not agree with, because it would mean that the OGF > starts administrating its urn:ogf namespace, and handing out > specific subsets to domains, with all associated registration and > possible squatting problems. > Domains already have a domain name, so why not use that? We do use the domain name. The URN identifiers take the form: urn:ogf:network:domain=glif.is:[domain-specific-chunk] This does minor standardization to allow domain scoping while giving flexibility to the domain to define their own identifiers. The instance identifiers is probably all be out of scope for the NML. The choice of an identifier scheme is really about the lookup and distribution of the topologies. Since we're focused on just describing the topologies themselves, and not specifically concerned about distribution, we can probably just leave it at "use URIs for identifiers", and let the higher-level groups like the like the NMC or the DICE-WG or whoever, decide on the actual structure of the identifiers. Cheers, Aaron

5 16

Re: [Nml-wg] [Nsi-wg] Agenda for Monday's NSI working group meeting
by Cees de Laat 15 Sep '08

15 Sep '08

In the meeting I promised to give pointers to work in IETF. Please look at: http://www.grotto-networking.com/wsonOutline WSON Information Model for Path Computation http://www.grotto-networking.com/wsonInfo Mailing list: "Wson (E-mail)" <wson(a)grotto-networking.com> List-Post: <mailto:wson@grotto-networking.com> List-Help: <mailto:wson-request@grotto-networking.com?subject=help> Greg Bernstein <gregb(a)grotto-networking.com> And: http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/ccamp-charter.html Best regards, Cees. At 14:17 +0100 11-09-2008, Guy Roberts wrote: >Here is a proposed agenda for upcoming NSI working group meeting. > >1. Introductions >2. Guy Roberts to present group charter -15 min >4. Kuhdo-san to Review proposed documentation structure for deliverables >d3 and d4 - 15min >3. KDDI presentation, Title: Application of Grid Technologies to Next >Generation Telecom Services, Speaker: Nobutaka MATSUMOTO (KDDI R&D >Laboratories Inc.)- 15 min >5. Agree lead authors and for deliverables d1 and d2 >5. Discuss main document headings for d1 and d2 >6. AoB >7. Review action items >8. Next session: 3rd October, Seattle > > >Any addition/modifications are welcome. > >Regards, >Guy Roberts >-- >_____________________________________________________________________ > > ** Guy Roberts, PhD Network Engineering & Planning > * * Tel: +44 (0)1223 371300 > * * City House Direct: +44 (0)1223 371316 > * 126-130 Hills Road Fax: +44 (0)1223 371371 > * Cambridge > * CB2 1PQ E-mail: guy.roberts(a)dante.org.uk > D A N T E United Kingdom WWW: http://www.dante.net >_____________________________________________________________________ >_______________________________________________ >nsi-wg mailing list >nsi-wg(a)ogf.org >http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsi-wg -- http://work.delaat.net:8080/~delaat/

1 0

GLIF 2008
by Freek Dijkstra 08 Sep '08

08 Sep '08

Hello all, Unfortunately, I will not be able to attend OGF24 in two weeks. However, I will be in Seattle at the GLIF 2008 meeting. If some of you are also attending, I would be interested to meet. Friday Oct 3 I am in fact available all day to talk NML. Please let me know if you are planning to go to GLIF meeting in Seattle, and if you are available to meet on Friday -- if enough people are interested, I will try to arrange a meeting room. Regards, Freek PS: I'm also interested to know who will attend OGF24.

2 1