Hi, On 18 Dec 2013, at 14:04, Henrik Thostrup Jensen <htj@nordu.net> wrote:
The way we generate the identifiers is perfectly valid NML. The "problem" arise when we interpret them :-).
NML != ‘urn:ogf:network' identifiers. There are two different documents describing them, and they are from the same authors, but they have very different goals, and different restrictions. You can do NML with any URI as identifiers. They do not specifically have to be urn:ogf:network identifiers.
If we are going to continue this discussion could we please tone down the "We are the knights of the URNs, and you have violated our sacred laws", and more about why we think NML isn't useful as a distributed topology model.
We defined the “urn:ogf:network” namespace to follow guidelines that were set by IANA and IETF. We did not just pull these out of our sleeves to come up with some restrictions to be particularly annoying to programmers. If you look at other urn namespaces I think you will find similar kinds of restrictions. If you do not agree with those restrictions, then don’t use that namespace. If you do use that namespace, and don’t follow the restrictions, then don’t be surprised if at some point implementations will throw validation errors back at you. Jeroen.