[Ndn-interest] any comments on naming convention?

[Mark Stapp]

On 9/15/14 1:49 PM, Junxiao Shi wrote:
> Dear folks

I agree with your analysis of the issues with several schemes that have 
been proposed over the years.

>
> One solution is to declare many new TLV types: VersionComponent,
> SegmentComponent, TimestampComponent, etc.
> This can guarantee unambiguity, but this restricts the introduction of
> new convention, because when we want to introduce another convention in
> the future, old consumer applications would not understand the new TLV type.
>

that's always going to be an issue, whether you make the type part of 
the TLV "T" or hide it inside the "V", right? For now, to start, I'd 
prefer to allocate some "T" codes for information that we've already got 
in name-components, work with them, and see whether we are pushed into a 
more elaborate scheme by some actual use. I don't think there would need 
to "declare ... many", actually: I'll bet there'd be just a handful.

[I see now that Marc Mosko has also replied - thanks, Marc, for 
detailing some of the kinds of name-comps you've been working with. Like 
him, I also think that simplifying the overall TLV encoding helps with 
issues like comparison and ordering.]

Thanks,
Mark