[Nfd-dev] Name component format

[Burke, Jeff]

Hi,
Comments below.
Thanks,
Jeff

From: Lixia Zhang <lixia at cs.ucla.edu<mailto:lixia at cs.ucla.edu>>
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2014 13:13:49 -0700
To: Jeff Burke <jburke at remap.ucla.edu<mailto:jburke at remap.ucla.edu>>
Cc: "nfd-dev at lists.cs.ucla.edu<mailto:nfd-dev at lists.cs.ucla.edu>" <nfd-dev at lists.cs.ucla.edu<mailto:nfd-dev at lists.cs.ucla.edu>>
Subject: Re: Name component format


On Mar 22, 2014, at 10:58 AM, "Burke, Jeff" <jburke at remap.ucla.edu<mailto:jburke at remap.ucla.edu>> wrote:

Hi,

There are a few changes to the representation of names in the TLV spec (http://named-data.net/doc/NDN-TLV/0.2/name.html)  that I am not sure have been widely discussed.  In particular, the introduction of types (beyond distinguishing the implicit digest), an updated URI representation, and the inability to specify empty name components.

Are these considered "baked"? Would it be possible to discuss these at some point in more detail?

Hi Jeff,

the changes were made after some discussions among the NFD team, then with Van.
Not sure what you meant by "considered baked". . .
- I do not think the changes made to the NFD release-1.
- we are doing explorative research, right?

[jb] Sorry, I just meant whether they were locked and incorporated into NFD release 1.

Of course all naming issues can benefit from more discussions.
- wonder if you would like to propose a specific time frame (i.e. next week, or longer term)?
- it would be helpful if there are some inputs/reading/considerations over email before the call, so that people can think through first.

[jb] I don't know that it is urgent – I know that the NFD people have a lot going on. :)    Perhaps the next meeting with IRL we can talk about it first, or on the NFD call on 4/4.

The main question I have is about the introduction of the number type?  What motivates it?  Doesn't this start  a slippery slope away from opaque names.


Among other things, typing components unless required by the protocol (as seems to be the case with the implicit hash) seems to run counter to the notion of name opaqueness, and there are some conflicts in the URI representation that need to be resolved.

For any URI issues: Please let Alex and Junxiao know.

[jb] JeffT had mentioned some concerns with the conflict with the allowable hex encoding... I'll ask him to talk with Alex and Junxiao.

for component typing: are you saying that we should allow name component typing?

[jb] No, I don't think so.  There might be some value to applications, but I found the notion of name opaqueness to be very powerful so am wondering about the motivation. (I understand it for the implicit hash.)

In any case, as soon as we can collect a list of technical questions, I can try scheduling a discussion.

Lixia
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.lists.cs.ucla.edu/pipermail/nfd-dev/attachments/20140325/522c7460/attachment.html>