Global Lambda Integrated Facility

Subject Re: Re: proposal for the introduction of Global Identifiers for lightpaths
From Freek Dijkstra <fdijkstr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date Tue, 23 Sep 2008 12:46:22 +0200

Ronald van der Pol wrote:

I like to hear other opinions.

A similar issue was raised in the OGF NML working group:

So maybe urn:ogf:... is the way to go.

The identifier in the NML working group are to identify *classes* (e.g. "device", "layer", "interface", etc.)

The identifier discussed here are to identify *instances* (e.g.,, etc.)

I would say that identifiers of instances, such as discussed here should be part of the namespace of the originator, thus not in a ogf namespace. So my preference would be to simply use the Internet2 naming scheme (GRI), only using a : instead of - as separator, and allowing any string as the local identifier (not just numbers). e.g.

Basically, I don't say there is a need to append something like "urn:ogf:network:lightpath:" before the above GRI (giving, since it will (must) be clear from the context that we are taking about a lightpath identifier.

This removes the need for the lengthy namespace delegation process (IANA has not delegated urn:ogf yet to the OGF).