Hi,
First a minor nit: the current NSI form is "urn:ogf:network:stp:<networkname>:<local part>" . I.e. there is no "opaque" multilevel subspace under the <networkname> component in STPs.
The local part is up to <networkname> to define, so it is opaque in my view, and can have as many sub-levels as they want.
A basic question occurs to me: Why do names need to be consistent within NSI and NML? What breaks if NSI maintains its current naming scheme?
This is IMO the wrong question from a bigger perspective. From an OGF standpoint, the goal of the NSI is to define a network service interface. The goal of the NML is to define a network markup language. Since both groups fall under the same standardisation organisation, the question ought to be "how can NSI use the NML model?".
I believe the NSI hierarchical two-tuple <networkid>:<localid> must be maintained as we reconcile the NML form to NSI. I think this will prove high useful in both path finding and topology distribution.
Since the DNS name is still part of an STP, you still have a separate network-id.
It seems to me the <DNS> requirement for the NML name could be relaxed slightly to be a bit more flexible for NSI network name requirements without undue harm to NML.
I suggest that there is no need to name STPs with a year component - this should be removed. (Why is it even required for NML?)
Please read again what was in my reply earlier, or refer to the urn:ogf:network request document that is in the NML repository. Jeroen.