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

[Burke, Jeff]

We do need versions that are not timestamps, I think. Not sure exactly why
yet, though.  


On 7/19/14, 6:30 AM, "Lixia Zhang" <lixia at CS.UCLA.EDU> wrote:

>
>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
>_______________________________________________
>Nfd-dev mailing list
>Nfd-dev at lists.cs.ucla.edu
>http://www.lists.cs.ucla.edu/mailman/listinfo/nfd-dev