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
