[Nml-wg] URN urn:ogf:network

[Jeff W. Boote]

On Sep 24, 2008, at 2:08 AM, Jeroen van der Ham wrote:

> Aaron Brown wrote:
>> There are reasons for a bulkier, less context-sensitive identifier
>> scheme, but I'm not sure the NML list is the right place to hash this
>> out since the identifier schemes are relevant more for lookup and
>> distribution than basic description.
>
> What do you mean by distribution in this case?

If this is going to be used in a global context, and not just from a  
local one - then the information that it 'exists' may need to be  
propagated to other places. (Consider path finding.)

>> For the sake of NML, i'd prefer to leave it at "identifiers are  
>> globally unique strings".
>
> I compeletely agree with that. I've tried to hammer this point down  
> at a
> GLIF meeting last year as well. I am all for leaving the form of the
> identifiers up to the people creating them. There are lots and lots of
> ways to create a globally unique identifier and everybody has their
> preference. I really don't care what they choose as long as it is
> *globally unique*.

They become much more useful if everyone is using the same algorithms  
to produce them.

> But, I do have to add one restriction to that clause. The globally
> unique string should be just an identifier, nothing more. That means  
> no
> implicit type information, no implicit location information, no  
> implicit
> source information, nothing.
> The globally unique string must identify a resource, about which more
> things can be stated using NML.

Here I disagree 100%. That is like saying that FQDN's should not have  
any structure or implicit type information etc...

If a circuit exists, but no one can find it, is it useful?

Obviously you could come up with a central repository of all circuit  
id's and relate them to location information. But, that has pretty  
annoying scaling issues. Especially, when we have a fairly clear  
topological model available for how to distribute this information.

jeff