Re: [decade] Open Issue-3 (draft "An HTTP-based DECADE ResourceProtocol")

[Peng Zhang <[e-mail]>]

Hi Haibin,

	I don't quite understand your question. If we are using SHA-256, as suggested in draft-farrell-decade-ni, the probability that two different objects have the same name would be very low. 

BR,

Peng.

On Sep 17, 2012, at 5:42 PM, Songhaibin wrote:

> While many people advocate Hashed names, the key point is, shall we allow conflict for the names? If we do not allow, how to solve it.
>  
> BR,
> -Haibin
>  
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Rahman, Akbar
> Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 10:31 PM
> To: Wangdanhua
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [decade] Open Issue-3 (draft "An HTTP-based DECADE ResourceProtocol")
>  
> Hi Danhua,
>  
> Yes, I agree that to make progress on your draft you need to show how to use a naming scheme as part of your proposal.  And I also agree that using the draft-farrell-decade-ni should be the starting point.
>  
>  
> Sincerely,
>  
>  
> Akbar
>  
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Wangdanhua
> Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 2:13 AM
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: [decade] Open Issue-3 (draft "An HTTP-based DECADE ResourceProtocol")
>  
>  
> Hi all,
>  
> The following is the third open issue left for “An HTTP-based DECADE Resource Protocol” (draft-wang-drp). We’re looking forward to your opinions and comments.
>  
> About the object naming scheme used in DECADE Protocol, we’re inclined to adopting the naming scheme proposed in the draft-farrell-decade-ni (Naming Things with Hashes). We thought it’s a good scheme and we are planning to have a try and see whether it’s workable in the protocol we proposed.
>  
> Does anybody have other opinions? And we’d like to hear your voice.
>  
> Best wishes,
> Danhua Wang
>