[Nfd-dev] packet format specification

[Junxiao Shi]

Hi Lan

Thanks for pointing these out.
This issue is tracked as Bug 2461 http://redmine.named-data.net/issues/2461

Yours, Junxiao
On Jan 31, 2015 7:19 PM, "Lan Wang (lanwang)" <lanwang at memphis.edu> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> There seems to be some inconsistencies in the packet format specification
> at http://named-data.net/doc/ndn-tlv/data.html#metainfo:
>
> FinalBlockId is an optional field of MetaInfo in the definition, but the
> following two statements suggest otherwise:
>
> - "If both ContentType and FreshnessPeriod are optional, one may consider
> Metainfo itself should be optional. But would have all 4 parts of Data
> packet help simplify implementation? We leave this question to people who
> are more familiar with high speed implementations."  add FinalBlockId after
> FreshnessPeriod?
>
> - "Timestamp and FinalBlockID can be useful meta information for
> applications, but do not need to be processed at the network layer.
> Therefore, if desired, applications should encode such meta information as
> part of the content."  This is a remnant of previous version of the
> specification that argues why FinalBlockID should not be part of MetaInfo.
> Remove FinalBlockID from this statement?
>
> Lan
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Nfd-dev mailing list
> Nfd-dev at lists.cs.ucla.edu
> http://www.lists.cs.ucla.edu/mailman/listinfo/nfd-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.lists.cs.ucla.edu/pipermail/nfd-dev/attachments/20150201/dd2309de/attachment.html>