[Ndn-interest] any comments on naming convention?

[Mark Stapp]

interesting:

On 9/15/14 1:41 PM, Tai-Lin Chu wrote:
> I think for naming convention, the community should come up with a
> solution that people "want" to use.

I think that we should work toward specifying something that does what 
we've learned (over several years of work) we need to do, and that does 
not add any additional pain or unnecessary complexity.

>
> Could you describe the ambiguous case? I think I know what you mean by
> ambiguous, but I just want to make sure. (I remembered someone from
> cisco mentioned this in ndncomm 2014.)
>
> To avoid ambiguity, I will start from name component tlvs and allocate
> more types for different meanings.
>
> 8 = regular name component
> <type> = segmented name component
>

yes, this is the approach I favor. typed name components allow us to 
identify the 'infrastucture' data in name components, while allowing us 
to set aside some number space for application-defined components. code 
that just wants to compare names or identify component boundaries needs 
to be able to treat the components as 'opaque', of course.

Thanks,
Mark