[Ndn-interest] any comments on naming convention?

[Mark Stapp]

ah, thanks - that's helpful. I thought you were saying "I like the 
existing NDN UTF8 'convention'." I'm still not sure I understand what 
you _do_ prefer, though. it sounds like you're describing an entirely 
different scheme where the info that describes the name-components is 
... someplace other than _in_ the name-components. is that correct? when 
you say "field separator", what do you mean (since that's not a "TL" 
from a TLV)?

-- Mark

On 9/17/14 6:02 AM, Massimo Gallo wrote:
> The why is simple:
>
> You use a lot of "generic component type" and very few "specific
> component type". You are imposing types for every component in order to
> handle few exceptions (segmentation, etc..). You create a rule (specify
> the component's type ) to handle exceptions!
>
> I would prefer not to have typed components. Instead I would prefer to
> have the name as simple sequence bytes with a field separator. Then,
> outside the name, if you have some components that could be used at
> network layer (e.g. a TLV field), you simply need something that
> indicates which is the offset allowing you to retrieve the version,
> segment, etc in the name...
>
>
> Max
>
>
>
>
>
> On 16/09/2014 20:33, Mark Stapp wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 9/16/14 10:29 AM, Massimo Gallo wrote:
>>>
>>> I think we agree on the small number of "component types".
>>> However, if you have a small number of types, you will end up with names
>>> containing many generic components types and few specific components
>>> types. Due to the fact that the component type specification is an
>>> exception in the name, I would prefer something that specify component's
>>> type only when needed (something like UTF8 conventions but that
>>> applications MUST use).
>>>
>>
>> so ... I can't quite follow that. the thread has had some explanation
>> about why the UTF8 requirement has problems (with aliasing, e.g.) and
>> there's been email trying to explain that applications don't have to
>> use types if they don't need to. your email sounds like "I prefer the
>> UTF8 convention", but it doesn't say why you have that preference in
>> the face of the points about the problems. can you say why it is that
>> you express a preference for the "convention" with problems ?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Mark
>>
>
> .
>