[Ndn-interest] any comments on naming convention? [version marker comment]
Abdelzaher, Tarek
zaher at illinois.edu
Sat Sep 20 10:12:54 PDT 2014
Jeff,
> 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?
Tarek
More information about the Ndn-interest
mailing list