[Ndn-interest] any comments on naming convention?
mjs at cisco.com
Mon Sep 15 11:45:20 PDT 2014
On 9/15/14 1:49 PM, Junxiao Shi wrote:
> Dear folks
I agree with your analysis of the issues with several schemes that have
been proposed over the years.
> One solution is to declare many new TLV types: VersionComponent,
> SegmentComponent, TimestampComponent, etc.
> This can guarantee unambiguity, but this restricts the introduction of
> new convention, because when we want to introduce another convention in
> the future, old consumer applications would not understand the new TLV type.
that's always going to be an issue, whether you make the type part of
the TLV "T" or hide it inside the "V", right? For now, to start, I'd
prefer to allocate some "T" codes for information that we've already got
in name-components, work with them, and see whether we are pushed into a
more elaborate scheme by some actual use. I don't think there would need
to "declare ... many", actually: I'll bet there'd be just a handful.
[I see now that Marc Mosko has also replied - thanks, Marc, for
detailing some of the kinds of name-comps you've been working with. Like
him, I also think that simplifying the overall TLV encoding helps with
issues like comparison and ordering.]
More information about the Ndn-interest