Re: Global Identifiers Naming Convention

[Freek Dijkstra <fdijkstr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Ronald van der Pol wrote:

> Please find attached the naming convention for Global Identifiers.
> This document will be discussed at the GLIF meeting in Catania on
> March 5th in the Global Identifiers Task Force timeslot. Our intension
> is to agree on this format and start using it in operational procedures
> shortly after.
> 
> If you have any comments, please send them to this list before
> the meeting.

The end of sections 2 lists three equivalent examples:
• NETHERLIGHT.NET:2161LE
• NeThErLiGhT.NeT:2161Le
• netherlight:2161le

I presume the third example is missing ".net".


By coincidence, I sent a note a couple of hours earlier to the NML-WG
list about identifiers.

Aaron Brown summarized the discussion as follows:

> The big folks are the DICE ones since they're using the NURNs
> already, but the plan is for them to adopt what the NML/NSI groups
> decide upon, so we should try and get this right before much further
> adoption occurs. 
> The GLIF folks have been discussing identifiers for
> circuits and seem to have reached a consense on ones of the form
> "[domain.edu]:[opaque goo]". The plan is for them to eventually move
> to a URN approach of "urn:glif:domain.edu:[opaque goo]" or similar.
> I think in the interest of cooperation with the other groups, and the
> desire to have one unified identifier scheme, it's probably best to
> match that style closely. Something along the lines of
> "urn:nml:domain.edu:[opaque goo]". As long as there is a URN header
> so that we can some idea on how to grok a given identifier, I'd be
> fine with that scheme.

I would be thrilled if we can decide on one of the above in both the
NML, NSI and GLIF in Catania.

Regards,
Freek