[Nfd-dev] Naming conventions (draft 4)

[Alex Afanasyev]

On Jul 28, 2014, at 5:13 PM, Davide Pesavento <davide.pesavento at lip6.fr> wrote:

> Hi Alex,
> 
> Thanks for the new draft.
> 
> *) 3.3 suggests using a timestamp as "a simple way to implement
> versioning", which sounds odd to me, why not using the timestamp
> marker 0xFC in such cases then?

For me, version and timestamp has semantical difference.  Timestamp is not necessary a version.  Timestamp could be assigned for different data items in time sequenced collection.  Version is about the same data packet.  Using timestamp marker for version creates semantical ambiguity.

> *) In 3.4, the value for the timestamp is in milliseconds. Can we
> change it to microseconds? Applications that don't need this
> granularity can just append zeros as needed.

I have no objections to refine granularity to microseconds.

> *) In 3.4, typo "cane" -> "can"
> 
> *) Why is sequencing a sub-section of timestamping?

an accident.


I have applied the fixes in draft 4: http://redmine.named-data.net/attachments/download/124/convention.pdf

---
Alex

> Thanks,
> Davide
> 
> On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 1:21 AM, Alex Afanasyev
> <alexander.afanasyev at ucla.edu> wrote:
>> Hi guys,
>> 
>> I made an update of the naming convention spec based on the received feedback. The updated draft can be downloaded here: http://redmine.named-data.net/attachments/download/123/convention.pdf
>> 
>> - Version is redefined to be just a number (larger number represents later version and it is up to the app to define the specific use)
>> - New marker for Timestamp
>> 
>> Please comment as we need to have this document approved before we can finalize our release.
>> 
>> ---
>> Alex
>> _______________________________________________
>> Nfd-dev mailing list
>> Nfd-dev at lists.cs.ucla.edu
>> http://www.lists.cs.ucla.edu/mailman/listinfo/nfd-dev