[Nml-wg] Identifiers

[Jeff W.Boote]

On Feb 12, 2009, at 9:48 AM, Aaron Brown wrote:

>
> 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.

I like this plan.

jeff