[Ndn-interest] any comments on naming convention?

Junxiao Shi shijunxiao at email.arizona.edu
Wed Sep 17 07:46:54 PDT 2014

Hi Marc

The MarkedComponent proposal <
is precisely a T0/T1 system:

   - T0=NameComponent
   - T1=MarkedComponent
   - key is encoded as variable length number (same way as T)

This still requires all codes to distinguish between NameComponent and
MarkedComponent everywhere, but we'll have exactly two types, instead of
potentially many types.

However, I agree that putting the key into TLV-TYPE is better than using
MarkedComponent or having a key in every component, because the processing
cost isn't any different.

Yours, Junxiao

On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 7:36 AM, <Marc.Mosko at parc.com> wrote:

> I think if you require all name components to have a “key=value” format,
> then that is an ok system, but it seems duplicative of having the TLV
> type.   Personally, I would then encode the “key=“ piece the same way you
> encode the TLV “T” (i.e. the 1/3/5 system).
> Though it does seem rather duplicative of having the TLV type, as I said.
> I think having one T (call it T0) for non-tagged and one T (call it T1) for
> “key=value” introduces more overhead than is needed, as you now have two
> type systems for one value.  You will need to keep the T0/T1 distinction
> everywhere in the code so you know if there is a “key=“ embedded in the
> name.  Programmatically, you’ll probably need to sprout a new class or
> getter/setter for the “key=“ for those types.  It seems simpler to me for
> the TLV “T” to always be associated with a name component, so you are
> always working with the (T, value) pair.
> Marc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.lists.cs.ucla.edu/pipermail/ndn-interest/attachments/20140917/6d057e2b/attachment.html>

More information about the Ndn-interest mailing list