[Nml-wg] URN urn:ogf:network

[Freek Dijkstra]

Anand Patil wrote:

> 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]

Thanks for the pointer!

If there is consensus that we indeed should use URNs for identifiers,
The way forward, it seems is:
1. Decide if we really like to use URNs. (If not, the OGF can still ask 
for delegation of urn:ogf, but I probably am less inclined to give it 
much effort).
2. Ask the OGF standardisation area director for his opinion (Chris 
Smith and David Snelling) and/or infrastructure area directors (
3. Involve the OGF liaison to the IETF (Cees de Laat)
4. Get people to write an Internet draft and/or OGF document describing 
its use). I'm willing to contribute, but only if we decide on using URNs.

So first things first:
- Do we want to use URNs (e.g. urn:ogf:network or urn:ogf:nml) for 
identifiers of the classes we define?
- If not, do we want to use URIs as identifier?
- If not, are there other potential identifiers to use?

Note: I'm explicitly talking about the identifiers of the classes (e.g. 
"network", "layer"), not about identifiers for instances.

So far, we have a small "yes" from me, and a large "yes" from Anand.
Martin, Jeroen, Aaron, John, Victor, others: what do you think?

> 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

My preference. I don't think our schema will be finished much earlier 
than the delegation, so I rather not add an additional transition. I 
don't have reason to suspect that the delegation request will fail.

Regards,
Freek