[Nfd-dev] Try NDNCERT (based on Interest-Data exchange) and get an NDN certificate today

[Junxiao Shi]

Dear folks

There's no need to argue over a string. It adds nothing to the security
properties.
Like all good network engineers, I read in hexadecimal. I see 0x50524F4245
and 0x5F50524F4245, not strings.
Pick one, stick with it, and ensure it's consistent everywhere.

Yours, Junxiao

On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 4:15 PM Zhiyi Zhang <zhiyi at cs.ucla.edu> wrote:

> I remembered it's a previous decision made by Alex. He suggested to have
> an underscore to distinguish this from normal name components because _XXX
> is a fixed component defined by the protocol.
>
> Best,
> Zhiyi
>
> On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 10:42 AM Davide Pesavento <davidepesa at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 1:23 PM Junxiao Shi
>> <shijunxiao at email.arizona.edu> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi Zhiyi
>> >
>> > The following responses are made on this protocol revision:
>> >
>> https://github.com/named-data/ndncert/wiki/NDNCERT-Protocol-0.2/68dd20c6457ffb6d57aac3eb7e06f0497dd4053a
>> >
>> >>> different assigned numbers
>> >>> Some assigned numbers differ between protocol (left) and
>> implementation (right).
>> >>> NEW vs _NEW
>> >>> CHALLENGE vs _CHALLENGE
>> >>> DOWNLOAD vs _DOWNLOAD
>> >>> EncryptedPayload: 602 vs 630
>> >>> InitialVector: 605 vs 632
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Addressed in the latest protocol Wiki page.
>> >
>> >
>> > Incomplete.
>> >
>> > PROBE in section 2.1 vs _PROBE in section 2.3.1 examples
>> > NEW in section 2.1 vs _NEW in section 2.3.2 examples
>> > CHALLENGE in section 2.1 vs _CHALLENGE in section 2.3.3 examples
>> > DOWNLOAD in section 2.1 vs _DOWNLOAD in section 2.3.4 examples
>>
>> I wonder what's the reason for the underscores. Why don't you simply
>> eliminate all of them?
>>
>> Davide
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.lists.cs.ucla.edu/pipermail/nfd-dev/attachments/20191121/2e10425b/attachment.html>