[Nml-wg] Identifiers

[Aaron Brown]

On Feb 12, 2009, at 3:58 AM, Freek Dijkstra wrote:

> I wonder if we can make progress by reaching consensus on the  
> following
> statements:
> - The NURN is not an identifier in the formal sense, it is a couple of
> properties that together uniquely identify something.
> - That said, sometimes it may be overkill to create a special
> identifier, but it is good enough to identify something by it's
> properties, as the NURN does.
> (and perhaps more controversial:)
> - The identifier that is sent to external parties consists of a domain
> part, identifying the originating domain, and a unique string part.
> Whilst this string may contain more properties, other parties do not
> need to interpret the meaning of this string.
> - As the NURN is formally defined in the OGF (I presume it is in the
> NM-WG), if the NML-WG deviates from this format, the NML-WG has an
> obligation to also define a practical transition strategy which does  
> not
> suddenly break things.

The big folks are the DICE ones since they're using the NURNs already,  
but the plan is for them to adopt what the NML/NSI groups decide upon,  
so we should try and get this right before much further adoption  
occurs. The GLIF folks have been discussing identifiers for circuits  
and seem to have reached a consense on ones of the form "[domain.edu]: 
[opaque goo]". The plan is for them to eventually move to a URN  
approach of "urn:glif:domain.edu:[opaque goo]" or similar. I think in  
the interest of cooperation with the other groups, and the desire to  
have one unified identifier scheme, it's probably best to match that  
style closely. Something along the lines of "urn:nml:domain.edu: 
[opaque goo]". As long as there is a URN header so that we can some  
idea on how to grok a given identifier, I'd be fine with that scheme.

Cheers,
Aaron