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