<html><body><div style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: #000000">Hi Junxiao,<br><br>In yesterday's call, you mentioned that you have some documentation about Interest Parameters that could be useful. Since I'm planning to start add Parameters, can you please send that?<br><br>Thanks,<br>Arthi<br><br><hr id="zwchr" data-marker=""><div data-marker=""><b>From: </b>"Junxiao Shi" <shijunxiao@email.arizona.edu><br><b>To: </b>"Lixia Zhang" <lixia@cs.ucla.edu><br><b>Cc: </b>"Arthi Padmanabhan" <artpad@cs.ucla.edu>, "<nfd-dev@lists.cs.ucla.edu>" <nfd-dev@lists.cs.ucla.edu><br><b>Sent: </b>Friday, July 6, 2018 12:09:15 PM<br><b>Subject: </b>Re: [Nfd-dev] Question about packet format v0.3 transition<br></div><br><div data-marker=""><div dir="ltr">Hi Lixia<div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><span class="gmail-">> Within the next few months, ndn-cxx must remain compatible with Packet Format 0.2 endpoints. Therefore, new fields such as Parameters are unavailable.<br>
<br>
</span>I can't recall the exact results from NFD discussion, but my vague memory does not match Junxiao's above statement.<br>
<br>
Compatibility means supporting the old protocol format.<br>
Compatibility does mean no support for new protocol field. <br></blockquote><br><div>As indicated on <a href="https://redmine.named-data.net/projects/nfd/wiki/Packet03Transition" target="_blank">https://redmine.named-data.net/projects/nfd/wiki/Packet03Transition</a> , Packet Format 0.3's new fields will become available when reaching "2-to-3 Interpretation" step.</div><div>Sadly, development work for Packet Format 0.3 has been dormant in past two months, so we are nowhere near that step.</div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><span class="gmail-">> Few people has any idea on how Interest Parameters *should* be used.<br>
<br>
</span>what does this statement mean ???<br></blockquote><div>As evidenced by not seeing any protocols designed to use Interest Parameters.</div><div>This could be a chicken-egg problem, as the implementation has no support for Interest Parameters, so that application developers would be unwilling to depend on a protocol feature that isn't yet available..</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><span class="gmail-">> Some protocol issues related to Interest Parameters adoption are:<br>
> <a href="https://redmine.named-data.net/issues/4599" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://redmine.named-data.net/issues/4599</a> Signed Interest and Command Interest<br>
<br>
</span>as I looked this up: I believe your proposed implementation needs to go through a thorough discussion (I am not sure I'd agree with your suggestion there)<br></blockquote><div>Everyone, please post your comments on Redmine.</div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<br><span class="gmail-im gmail-HOEnZb"><br>
> <a href="https://redmine.named-data.net/issues/4600" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://redmine.named-data.net/issues/4600</a> NFD Management protocol<br>
<span style="font-size:small;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;float:none;display:inline">the next issue is about management protocol, which is not directly related to other apps use of Interest parameter field.</span></span></blockquote><div>NFD Management protocol serves as an example on how to design a command-response protocol. So far, repo-ng and NLSR has adopted similar protocols.</div><br><div>Yours, Junxiao</div></div></div></div><br></div></div></body></html>