Hi, I have a strong preference for using URNs. Of course this is subject to OGF applying for and getting the top level urn:ogf from IANA. We have successfully got urn:geant for the our community [id 31; RFC4926] and we find that the sub-delegation model creates an easy to use, easy to manage and powerful distributed naming scheme. After having read the GLIF document I think we should press the relevant people in OGF to ask for one. It also has has a good PR value to use own 1. If we get a NO for OGF applying for urn:ogf then I would stay with the URI in option2 stated below. We could also use a sub-delegated existing urn (see 2c below). 2. If we get a YES for OGF applying for urn:ogf, then the question is what do we do meanwhile. 2a. Use URN under the assumption that OGF will eventually get it 2b. Use URI meanwhile 2c. Another option (though may not be politically correct) would be to use a sub-delegation from an existing URN (mace, geant). This can then be moved to an OGF urn once urn:OGF is allocated (subject to no production use of the sub-delegated values) regards, - anand. Freek Dijkstra wrote:
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 _______________________________________________ nml-wg mailing list nml-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/nml-wg