[Nml-wg] Identifiers

[Freek Dijkstra]

My own opinion below.

> Question 1. Should the schema end with a / or #?
> a) http://schemas.ogf.org/nml/base/2013/10   (common for XML)
> b) http://schemas.ogf.org/nml/base/2013/10/  (current proposal)
> c) http://schemas.ogf.org/nml/base/2013/10#  (common for RDF)

Either b or c. (a may be a problem for RDF).

> Question 2. What attributes to use for references in XML?
> a) existing id and idref in NM-WG namespace
> b) redefine id and idref in NML namespace
> c) create dedicated namespace for just id and idref

No big prefence. In order: a, c, or b
(b lowest preference because I don't want to redefine again if we create
technology-specific schemata,. e.g. for Ethernet, OTN, IP, etc.)

> Question 3. What characters are allowed in <opaque string>?
> a) GLIF:       A-Z a-z 0-9 - .
> b) unreserved: A-Z a-z 0-9 - . _ ~
> c) RFC2141:    A-Z a-z 0-9 - . _ ( ) + , : = @ ; $ ! * ' %hex
> d) pchar:      A-Z a-z 0-9 - . _ ~ ( ) + , : = @ ; $ ! * ' & %hex

Whatever will be defined in rfc2141bis, thus d or c.
a or b miss a : and are too limited for that reason.

> Question 4. MUST all object have an id?
> a) All Network Objects MUST have an identifier.
> b) All Network Objects SHOULD have an identifier.

b. Use it unless there is compelling reason not to.

> Question 5. MUST urn:ogf:network syntax be used?
> a) All identifiers MUST follow the urn:ogf:network syntax
> b) All identifiers MUST be a URI, and SHOULD follow the urn:ogf:network
> syntax
> c) All identifiers MUST be a unique, and MAY follow the urn:ogf:network
> syntax
> (some more variants are possible)

b. Use it, unless there is compelling reason not to. Allow other syntax
for forward compatibility. (e.g. I can imagine that in the future
instead of using the FQDN or AS number, we have another method to
identify domains, and we allow another type of URN).

Freek