[Nsi-wg] [Nml-wg] NML Topology identifiers
Henrik Thostrup Jensen
htj at nordu.net
Thu Dec 12 06:53:47 EST 2013
Hi Freek
On Wed, 11 Dec 2013, Freek Dijkstra wrote:
> As for the adding hierarchy to URNs, I suggest we discuss this at OGF
> 40. I think it is a bad idea to add a network hierarchy to an
> identifier, but do not necessarily object to all sorts of hierarchies.
> In fact, the URN:OGF:NETWORK specification already requires that the
> first part of a URN starts with an identifier of the assigning
> organization (which is somewhat akin to the NSA, but not necessarily the
> same as the Topology).
The reason we made identifiers hierarchial is because we wanted a
hierarchial model, including the identifiers.
I don't care about URNs. They add exactly zero value to the system. I have
yet to see a good argument for why
"urn:ogf:network:nordu.net:2013:ps?vlan=1701" is better than
"nordu.net:ps?vlan=1701"
Best regards, Henrik
Henrik Thostrup Jensen <htj at nordu.net>
Software Developer, NORDUnet
More information about the nsi-wg
mailing list