[Nml-wg] URN urn:ogf:network

[Anand Patil]

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 at ogf.org
> http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/nml-wg
>