[Nsi-wg] Identifiers

[Jerry Sobieski]

If the NSI two-tuple <networkid>:<localid> STP name is preserved in the 
NML naming convention, then I think it is possible to use the NML 
convention with maybe some minor mods...

However, I have some concerns about the NML convention in this respect:

Q1.)  Is the proposed NML naming convention 
"urn:ogf:network:<DNSname>:<year>:<opaque part>" used for all 
topological objects?  Or is it *only* for naming STPs?
Q1.b)  Is "urn:ogf:network:" now to be used solely for NML topology? or 
will that namesapce be available for naming other objects or subspaces 
related to other aspects of grid networking in general?

Q2.) Is it *required* that the NML naming element that follows "network" 
be specifically a DNS domain name?   I.e. Why does NML require a DNS 
name?   In essence, the *DNS requirement* makes the the domain naming 
registry the authority that guarantees uniqueness for OGF URNs.  
right?    Further, requiring DNS names makes it difficult for end users 
to name their own network(s) as not every STP resides where a DNS name 
is clear or appropriate or valid.

Q2.b) Since NSI Networks are "service domains" rather than comprehensive 
hardware infrastructure, they may not map directly or uniquely to 
specific DNS domains.  For instance, there is nothing preventing a 
number of collaborating organizations from pooling their resources into 
a single NSI Network service domain.  How would the DNS mapping be 
applied in this scenario?

Q3.)  What does the DNS name level represent in terms of NML?  I.e. why 
have it at all ?  What are the NML requirements for object names that 
requires DNS names in them (or the year value that follows the DNS 
element..)

Q4.) There is a <year> following the DNS element in the NML convention.  
Why?   In particular, what authority is responsible for naming 
topological objects under a "ogf:network:<DNS name>:" name space?  Is 
this truly necessary?  This feels rather  convoluted and questionable... 
- we certainly do not need it for the NSI naming...

Comments?
Jerry


On 6/12/12 9:05 AM, Jeroen van der Ham wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We need to take a decision regarding the identifiers used for STPs and other elements.
>
> The NML-WG has taken upon itself to register the urn:ogf:network subnamespace, and to make it available for the identification of network resources. The group is currently writing a document describing how that should be used. The current accepted proposal is the following form:
>
> urn:ogf:network:example.com:2012:opaque:part
>
> So after the urn:ogf:network part comes the DNS name of the organisation defining the identifier, followed by the four digit year in which the identifier was created, followed by a local part.
>
> The current Automated GOLE uses identifiers of the form below, which is not compatible:
>
> urn:ogf:network:stp:example.ets:opaque:part
>
>
> We have a couple of options going forward:
>
> - use identifiers following NML-WG standard
> 	a) allow domain owners free form in the opaque part
> 	b) define that opaque part should begin with "stp:"
> - try to register a different urng:ogf subnamespace
>
> Note that the last option is not that simple. We have to propose a scheme that will ensure indefinite uniqueness, which would probably be something very closely resembling the NML-WG scheme.
>
> Jeroen.
>
> _______________________________________________
> nsi-wg mailing list
> nsi-wg at ogf.org
> https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsi-wg