[Nfd-dev] minor suggestion regarding prefix matching logging in NFD

[Junxiao Shi]

Hi Fred

This isn’t a forwarder problem, but a producer problem. The producer
shouldn’t respond to an Interest with a Data that violates CanBePrerix
element. If logging is required, it should happen at the producer.

Yours, Junxiao

On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 12:41 Fred Douglis <fdouglis at perspectalabs.com>
wrote:

> I've been using NFD 0.6.3; it's possible this has been changed in a later
> version, or at least a known issue, so if so please just advise.
>
> I was trying to do a simple test, using the ndnpeek test application.  I
> could see that the interest was reaching the producer and making its way
> back to NFD, but NFD was rejecting it as *unsolicited data*.
>
> It took me longer than it should have to realize that I'd neglected to
> include the -P flag.  But when I look at the NFD log, it could definitely
> be a bit more informative.  It shows that it looks up the name provided in
> the data and fails, then matches the name provided in the interest.  At
> which point it says it's an unsolicited data packet.
>
> I assume what is happening under the covers is that when it matches the
> prefix, it is looking for the CanBePrefix flag, not finding it, and
> declaring it to be unsolicited.  A DEBUG or TRACE-level message to that
> effect would, I think, help what must be a somewhat common occurrence.   Or
> perhaps there is a further debug level or something else that would already
> have revealed this?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Fred
>
> _______________________________________________
> Nfd-dev mailing list
> Nfd-dev at lists.cs.ucla.edu
> http://www.lists.cs.ucla.edu/mailman/listinfo/nfd-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.lists.cs.ucla.edu/pipermail/nfd-dev/attachments/20190327/561ca5e5/attachment.html>