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

[Davide Pesavento]

Hi Alex and all,

Some comments from me and Giulio.

Segmentation: looks good to us.

Versioning: must the version really correspond to the number of
millisecs since epoch? I can see a couple of problems with this:
    1/ millisecs granularity may not be enough for the application
    2/ if accurate clock synchronization is indeed a problem, using
timestamps is pointless, but on the other hand there's no defined
marker for non-time-based versioning, so what do we do?

Maybe the value for the version marker should be defined more broadly
as a monotonically increasing nonnegative integer (but not necessarily
sequential), leaving the door open to more use cases. On the other
hand, one could argue that this new definition isn't much different
from a sequence number (it only lacks the sequentiality property),
therefore maybe we could merge versioning into sequencing. If needed,
applications can still use timestamps in name components, but those
components simply won't be marked in any special way.

Conversely, if the majority prefers keeping the proposed timestamp
semantics, can we at least call it "timestamping" instead of
versioning?

Thanks,
Davide

On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 2:32 AM, Alex Afanasyev
<alexander.afanasyev at ucla.edu> wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> We need to have an approval for the naming convention spec before we can proceed with changes to the libraries.  Given the testbed deployment is scheduled this Friday, the spec (at least on conceptual level, we can correct wordings later) needs to be approved before that
>
> Just in case, link to the latest version: http://redmine.named-data.net/attachments/download/102/convention.pdf
>
> ---
> Alex
>