[Ndn-interest] any comments on naming convention? [version marker comment]
jburke at remap.ucla.edu
Fri Oct 3 19:29:43 PDT 2014
Sorry for the delayed reply. I am curious whether the network would need
to know the priority in the applications that you're thinking of, or
whether it would be sufficient for the application (or some part of the
stack). If I remember the information maximization proposal correctly, it
would use data objects named (in either a hierarchical or flat structure)
in a way that reflects what they refer to... for example, their geography
coverage or a feature vector of some sort. Wouldn't it be sufficient for
the requesting application to issue interests according to an information
maximizing approach rather than relying on anything within the network to
On 9/20/14, 9:12 PM, "Abdelzaher, Tarek" <zaher at illinois.edu> wrote:
>> in the document I sent, there are seven specific, though not
>> equally well considered, reasons to use marker components that have
>> nothing to with the so-called type explosion. As far as I can tell, no
>> one has addressed these from the application developer's perspective.
>> Could someone?
>I have a small comment on the original name conventions document sent by
>Tai-Lin. I'd like to suggest a slight semantic generalization of the
>meaning of one of the proposed markers; namely, the versioning marker
>0xFD (which identifies the version of the component).
>Do you see harm in overloading the semantics of the field identified by
>0xFD to refer to a general "priority" hint? As the document suggests, by
>convention, priority could be given to, say, lexicographically larger
>values in that field. The document says "[versioning] can be used by
>third-parties, e.g., to prioritize caching of the latest versions of
>data". I can see other reasons that applications or transport protocols
>might want to instruct caches to prioritize objects that have the same
>prefix. It would be convenient to be able to insert a value in the 0xFD
>field such that larger lexicographic values are prioritized (in caches,
>etc) over smaller ones. One such scenario is described in the
>"Information Funnel" paper, where the lexicographical priority "value"
>would be an entire name postfix (referring a subtree in which some
>lexicographically ordered branches are more important than others).
>Application software and/or transport layers could then properly name
>producer objects slated for sharing with subscribers such that the
>network is aware of their relative importance. Think, for example, of
>layered video encoding, where base-layer objects should be prioritized
>over enhancement-layer objects. Any thoughts/comments?
>Ndn-interest mailing list
>Ndn-interest at lists.cs.ucla.edu
More information about the Ndn-interest