[Ndn-interest] [Question] Why is TLV naming of content not popular?

Marc.Mosko at parc.com Marc.Mosko at parc.com
Fri Apr 28 12:28:26 PDT 2017

Do you mean why are TLV structures not used for multiple component names, like a URI or NDN name?  They are and have been since forever ago.

X.509 (or even X.500 more generally), for example, uses X.208 DER (1988) to encode SubjectNames.  DER is a TLV style encoding.  Likewise, BER has been around for the same amount of time and is used many other places to encode data and multi-part names.

In networking, however, most of the time TLV encoding is used for end-to-end communications, not per-hop packets where fixed length headers have been generally preferred.  RFC 5444 (manet packet) is one notable exception that uses TLV for packet-level encoding.  DTN and DTNbis use self-delimited values, as do Protocol Buffers.


> On Apr 28, 2017, at 12:01 PM, Pengyuan Zhou <zpymyyn at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
> I was thinking why not using TLV to name content as well, since packet is already using it. 
> It seems scalable and flexible to me.
> And then I found there is already one work for this back to 2012
> "A TLV-structured data naming scheme for content-oriented networking” 
> But seems not lots of ppl paid attention which confused me.
> Is there any weakness in this scheme?
> Thanks.
> Best,
> Pengyuan
> _______________________________________________
> Ndn-interest mailing list
> Ndn-interest at lists.cs.ucla.edu
> http://www.lists.cs.ucla.edu/mailman/listinfo/ndn-interest

More information about the Ndn-interest mailing list