[Nsi-wg] [Nml-wg] NML Topology identifiers

[Henrik Thostrup Jensen]

On Tue, 10 Dec 2013, Jeroen van der Ham wrote:

> A problem however is with the way you plan to use the urn:ogf:network 
> identifiers. The use of these identifiers has been defined and 
> standardised, according to the IETF and IANA guidelines. The reason for 
> these restrictions and standardisation are to have persistent, globally 
> unique identifiers, without having to have a central registry of our 
> own.

AFAICT the way we generate the URNs is perfectly valid. If not, please be 
specific. In fact, the topology that we will generate should be consumable 
by any "normal" NML consumer.

> Changing these identifiers to leave out certain parts because this is 
> more convenient is simply not an option, as it breaks current and future 
> compatibility. You will have to use a different namespace or 
> identification scheme for this.

Is this just referring to the date part or something else?

I still have problems wrapping my head around the rationale for these 
URNs: We put severe restrictions on how to generate them, but they are in 
no way enforcable. We put a lot of information into the URNs when 
generating them, but you are not allowed to interpret them. Seriously?


     Best regards, Henrik

  Henrik Thostrup Jensen <htj at nordu.net>
  Software Developer, NORDUnet