[Nml-wg] Naming

[Jeff W. Boote]

On Mar 28, 2008, at 8:39 AM, Freek Dijkstra wrote:
>
> Here comes the great part: we actually shouldn't define that.
> I think the goal of the NML-WG is not to dive in protocol and  
> implementation details, like this. All we should do is come up with  
> a good model, or ontology to describe networks.

Doesn't a good model need to be usable for the use cases? (Most of the  
debate I have seen on the email list I think boils down to different  
people thinking about different use cases.)

If you don't at least explore how identifiers remain globally unique,  
even in abstracted form how will you be sure your model actually works  
in practice? I"m not advocating one form over another here, but I do  
take issue with saying this is outside the scope of work. It would be  
a shame to spend a lot of time creating something that is not useful  
in the end.

jeff
--
Jeff W. Boote
boote at internet2.edu