[Nfd-dev] Naming conventions for "sequence number"

[Lixia Zhang]

On Jul 19, 2014, at 5:05 AM, Lan Wang (lanwang) <lanwang at memphis.edu> wrote:

> 
> On Jul 16, 2014, at 12:35 PM, Lixia Zhang <lixia at CS.UCLA.EDU> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On Jul 16, 2014, at 5:10 AM, Lan Wang (lanwang) <lanwang at memphis.edu> wrote:
>> 
>>> Alex,
>>> 
>>> What is the difference between Version and Sequence number?  Is Version based on timestamps?  If so, it seems that Version should be explicitly called Timestamp.  
>>> 
>>> Lan
>> 
>> there are cases one is preferred over the other depending on app needs.
>> there are cases both are used: see RFC 3550 (RTP) as an example: it uses both timestamp and seq#
>> the former can tell the time gaps between data
>> the latter can tell whether any piece is missing
> 
> Yes, agree that timestamp and seq# can be both useful.  I was just trying to point out that the Version concept is vague and I agree with Jeff that there's a no clear distinction between version and sequence number.  So instead of trying to define the semantic of version and sequence, why not just use timestamp (which doesn't have to be sequential) and seq# (which has to be sequential)?  The application can use either one or both to differentiate between different pieces of data.
> 
> Lan

We agree; I misunderstood your original msg.
as far as I understand, the current definition of version value is timestamp.  
Alex's original msg simply argues for a need to be able to distinctively mark seq# in addition to that (timestamp).
If we mark timestamp as timestamp, then do we still need a "version" marker?

Lixia