Re: Re: proposal for the introduction of Global Identifiers for lightpaths

[Ronald van der Pol <rvdp@xxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 00:22:28 +0200, Freek Dijkstra wrote:

> As I see it, there are four options:
> 1. Use URNs, and register urn:glif: at IANA (and thus go to the IETF)
> 2. Use URNs, without official IANA registration (which undermines the  
> role of IANA)
> 3. Use an "unofficial" URN, e.g. urn-1:gif:, which only has a very  
> light-weight registration process ("two week review on urn-nid list")
> 4. Use URIs.
>
> I think option 2 is very undesirable, and option 1 is too official at  
> this moment (GLIF is not a standardization body as I see it). So I would  
> recommend option 3 or 4.

Freek,

Thanks for your comments.

There is another option. Leave out the urn:glif part. That is the
"sourcing organisation naming scheme" described in section 3.3.
That was what we agreed upon before the URN extension. The URN
came up at the last moment and we all liked it. But apparently
it has some issues.

I like to hear other opinions.

	rvdp

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature