[Nml-wg] URN urn:ogf:network

[Martin Swany]

Hi Freek,

> If the owner is part of the identifier (as I just suggested in my
> previous mail; e.g. identifier=glif.is:2678), and there is another
> mapping from owner (glif.is) to phonebook (e.g.
> https://idc.internet2.edu/ws/status.cgi), then each domain can only  
> have
> one phone book.

I think that in both cases (domain + opaque local ID and
attribute/value pairs including domain=) the owner is part
of the ID.  That seems to be necessary to avoid another
level of indirection.

> In Jeroen's proposal, each identifier is just a string, and there is a
> direct mapping from identifier to each phone book. So without the
> intermediate mapping of the identifier to owner to phonebook. The
> advantage is that a domain can have two phonebooks. E.g. the phonebook
> for glif.is:2678 may be https://idc.internet2.edu/ws/status.cgi. while
> the phonebook for glif.is:2679 may be http://glif.is/ws/status.cgi.

Something has to know that information for all of glif,is, right?

> So Jeroen's proposal is even more flexible.

I don't agree that untyped, flat identifiers are more flexible.
In our scheme, the opaque version could be:
domain=glif.is, id=2678

But one could also have
domain=glif.is, gole=foo
domain=glif.is, node=rembrandt
domain=glif, subdomain=something

The attributed syntax allows you more flexibility to encode
semantic info.

martin