Re: Global ID variants

["Jeff W. Boote" <boote@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

In the room this morning the vote was something like 15-3 in favor of  
the ogf prefix... Are we really looking for 100% consensus?

jeff

On Oct 2, 2008, at 5:10 PM, Wouter Huisman wrote:

> Ronakd,
> I agree, we should be pragmatic and get the global lightpath IDs in  
> place to ease the NOC operations. Your proposal to initially leave  
> out the prefix sounds fine to me.
>
> Cheers Wouter
>
> Freek Dijkstra wrote:
> > Ronald van der Pol wrote:
> > > After today's discussion we seem to have a couple of proposals:
> > >
> > > urn:glif:<domain>:<local>
> > > urn:ogf:network:<domain>:<local>
> > > urn:ogf:network:domain 
> > > =<domain>:key1=<value1>:key2=<value2>:...:<local>
> > > urn:ogf:network:<domain>:localkey1=<localvalue1>:...
> > >
> > > question:
> > > Do we want a scheme were a lightpath can have multiple globally  
> > > unique IDs?
> > > This would be the case where these are IDs for the same lightpath:
> > > urn:ogf:network:domain 
> > > =<domain>:key1=<value1>:key2=<value2>:...:<local>
> > > urn:ogf:network:key2 
> > > =<value2>:...:key1=<value1>:domain=<domain>:<local>
> > > urn:ogf:network:key2 
> > > =<value2>:domain=<domain>:...:key1=<value1>:<local>
> > >
> > > I don't like this. This won't work in real life.
> > I concur. The idea of identifier is that it is unique. This isn't.
> > This would be very bad. One solution that was proposed in the hallway
> > was that the keys MUST have a specific order.
> > That said, I have four more objections against NURN, all stemming  
> > from
> > the fact that a NURN is in fact not an identifier. It is a list of
> > properties that happens to uniquely identify something. But it is  
> > not a
> > name.
> > > question:
> > > Should we (GOLE operators) start using a simplified form of naming  
> > > asap
> > > in trouble tickets? We could start using <domain>:<local> now in  
> > > trouble
> > > tickets. When we need it in a web services context we can stick a  
> > > urn
> > > in front of it. We can decide on a urn later.
> > I would highly recommend this. This seems like a very clean  
> > identifier.
> > Later on other groups can decide to render this identifier in a  
> > certain
> > way when transmitted in a certain protocol if they want (e.g. as
> > urn:glif:<domain>:<local> or
> > urn:ogf:network:domain=<domain>:localid=<local> or
> > urn:ogf:network:domain=<domain>:localid=<local>:type=lightpath etc.)
> > However, this is then part of the representation, not of the  
> > identifier.
> > For example, I even appreciate NURN as a compact rendering of
> > properties; it's just not the same as the name/identifier anymore.
> > Regards,
> > Freek Dijkstra