[Ndn-interest] any comments on naming convention?

Massimo Gallo massimo.gallo at alcatel-lucent.com
Wed Sep 17 03:02:26 PDT 2014

The why is simple:

You use a lot of "generic component type" and very few "specific 
component type". You are imposing types for every component in order to 
handle few exceptions (segmentation, etc..). You create a rule (specify 
the component's type ) to handle exceptions!

I would prefer not to have typed components. Instead I would prefer to 
have the name as simple sequence bytes with a field separator. Then, 
outside the name, if you have some components that could be used at 
network layer (e.g. a TLV field), you simply need something that 
indicates which is the offset allowing you to retrieve the version, 
segment, etc in the name...


On 16/09/2014 20:33, Mark Stapp wrote:
> On 9/16/14 10:29 AM, Massimo Gallo wrote:
>> I think we agree on the small number of "component types".
>> However, if you have a small number of types, you will end up with names
>> containing many generic components types and few specific components
>> types. Due to the fact that the component type specification is an
>> exception in the name, I would prefer something that specify component's
>> type only when needed (something like UTF8 conventions but that
>> applications MUST use).
> so ... I can't quite follow that. the thread has had some explanation 
> about why the UTF8 requirement has problems (with aliasing, e.g.) and 
> there's been email trying to explain that applications don't have to 
> use types if they don't need to. your email sounds like "I prefer the 
> UTF8 convention", but it doesn't say why you have that preference in 
> the face of the points about the problems. can you say why it is that 
> you express a preference for the "convention" with problems ?
> Thanks,
> Mark

More information about the Ndn-interest mailing list