[Ndn-interest] spec 0.3 (was Re: [SUSPICIOUS MAIL: Malware] Re: NDN TLV 0.3

[christian.tschudin at unibas.ch]

The new spec is indeed interesting, one already feels that this will 
lead to leaner code!

I wonder about the terminology of "prefix name, exact name and full 
name", whether a semantic denotation instead one based on the match 
mechanics would have been easier to understand, and simpler.

One could have used:
- name :== forwarding hint with an optional digest
- forwarding hint :== one or more name component
- digest :== sha256 value

because prefix name and exact name are the same, and nothing more than 
this: a forwarding hint where one OR MORE data object may satisfy such 
an name. Of course there is the additional requirement that the name 
components must match (prefixly or exactly) those in the data object. 
But this is now captured in the "canBePrefix" element, right?

The definition above, with only one sort of names instead of three, 
would be usable for "nameless objects" (which are not captured in spec 
0.3) where there are no name components to match, only the digest. I 
understand that this would also imply a change in the matching logic, 
for example a rule saying that the digest always trumps.

Views?

best, christian

PS: Perhaps an overlooked reference to selectors, to be cleaned up? In the Name section:
   ", either as the last component of Interest Name to request
    a specific Data packet, or in the Exclude selector to exclude
    specific Data packet(s)"


On Fri, 2 Mar 2018, Cenk Gündoğan wrote:

> Hello Junxiao,
>
> thank you for this quick response.
>
> On 18-03-02 07:11:18, Junxiao Shi wrote:
>> Hi Cenk
>>
>> yesterday the NDN TLV spec in [1] was updated to the NDN TLV spec
>>> version 0.3.
>>
>> It’s called “NDN Packet Format”, not “NDN TLV”. TLV is a mechanism, not the
>> fundamental part of this packet format.