[Ndn-interest] any comments on naming convention?

Massimo Gallo massimo.gallo at alcatel-lucent.com
Tue Sep 16 02:12:17 PDT 2014

Dear all,

Interesting discussion!

Here are my 2 cents to the discussion.

I think we should avoid having explicit components' type. CCN/NDN are 
layer three technologies that allow an end host process to retrieve some 
named data. The networking layer does need only to check local cache 
(exact match IMO), PIT (exact match IMO) and FIB (LPM, I think we all 
agree on this :D!). The way a "consumer" requests the next in order 
segment is up to the transport layer as Tarek said and not a layer three 
functionality. Moreover, adding components' types may introduce problems 
as type explosion (also pointed by someone else in this thread).

That said there might be some "special" components requiring conventions:

Segment: the most important one IMO because with that field many 
segments can be identified as a single object and treated differently 
for caching purposes. (i.e. a naming convention here can be that Segment 
ID must be last name's component hence without an explicit segment 

Versioning and Timestamp: there might be a case for explicitly identify 
those two components as suggested in the NDN-TR-22 but, IMO, too many 
naming conventions will complexify layer three operations that I would 
keep as simple as possible.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.lists.cs.ucla.edu/pipermail/ndn-interest/attachments/20140916/422af6dd/attachment.html>

More information about the Ndn-interest mailing list