Re: [Icnrg-harmonization] NDN use of nameless Data

<Marc.Mosko@parc.com> Fri, 02 September 2016 00:02 UTC

Return-Path: <Marc.Mosko@parc.com>
X-Original-To: icnrg-harmonization@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: icnrg-harmonization@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57D1D12D96A for <icnrg-harmonization@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Sep 2016 17:02:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id r4wbqpxGcbwp for <icnrg-harmonization@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Sep 2016 17:02:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from omega.xerox.com (omega.xerox.com [13.1.64.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 27FA712B03B for <icnrg-harmonization@irtf.org>; Thu, 1 Sep 2016 17:02:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by omega.xerox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6D915201C8; Thu, 1 Sep 2016 17:02:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at parc.com
Received: from omega.xerox.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.parc.xerox.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8jGo_YVEeFi1; Thu, 1 Sep 2016 17:02:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exchangehub.parc.xerox.com (vertigo.parc.xerox.com [13.2.13.102]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by omega.xerox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 93B075201BC; Thu, 1 Sep 2016 17:02:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from E2010DAG5.corp.ad.parc.com ([fe80::3d0b:7158:aec4:e05e]) by vertigo.corp.ad.parc.com ([fe80::606e:47ce:f5e2:fe3a%14]) with mapi id 14.03.0301.000; Thu, 1 Sep 2016 17:02:11 -0700
From: <Marc.Mosko@parc.com>
To: <ravi.ravindran@huawei.com>, <icnrg-harmonization@irtf.org>
Thread-Topic: NDN use of nameless Data
Thread-Index: AQHSBGTUckNfPjJQ5026HaHPYKaunqBk8c4ggABf/IA=
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2016 00:02:10 +0000
Message-ID: <87A7A215-9145-4B1B-B240-213F0B1916B7@parc.com>
References: <92ABC834-3C47-4B3C-9D85-83493B8B9414@parc.com> <D96E28F4A22C864DBC6C871B5B1C4CC320CC5020@SJCEML701-CHM.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <D96E28F4A22C864DBC6C871B5B1C4CC320CC5020@SJCEML701-CHM.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/f.18.0.160709
x-originating-ip: [50.0.67.90]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_87A7A21591454B1BB240213F0B1916B7parccom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/icnrg-harmonization/Q0imVXEK3_FcCDyK9rUL4VFnKOw>
Subject: Re: [Icnrg-harmonization] NDN use of nameless Data
X-BeenThere: icnrg-harmonization@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: ICN Harmonization Discussion <icnrg-harmonization.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/icnrg-harmonization>, <mailto:icnrg-harmonization-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/icnrg-harmonization/>
List-Post: <mailto:icnrg-harmonization@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:icnrg-harmonization-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/icnrg-harmonization>, <mailto:icnrg-harmonization-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2016 00:02:05 -0000

I think in a way that’s a distinction without much of a difference. If one uses the convention of putting an empty name in all the “nameless” Data Objects, the only way to retrieve them is by implicit hash + link.

In CCNx we made several definitions that basically lead to using no name instead of an empty name in nameless objects.  Because we use equality match on the name and do not append the implicit digest, it made more sense to not use a name at all than use an empty name.  In NDN, because the implicit digest is appended to the Data name, using an empty name does the same thing.

One could propose doing something similar to the NDN Interest link in ccnx too.  We could put a few slides together on that to see what it looks like and talk about it.

Marc

From: Ravi Ravindran <ravi.ravindran@huawei.com>
Date: Thursday, September 1, 2016 at 11:24 AM
To: Marc <Marc.Mosko@parc.com>om>, "icnrg-harmonization@irtf.org" <icnrg-harmonization@irtf.org>
Subject: RE: NDN use of nameless Data

But one big difference here with CCNx is that, in NDN is that all objects are named. I think we should reconsider this notion of nameless objects in CCNx, and define a way to carry locator names in the Interest messages.

Regards,
Ravi

From: Icnrg-harmonization [mailto:icnrg-harmonization-bounces@irtf.org] On Behalf Of Marc.Mosko@parc.com
Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2016 8:24 AM
To: icnrg-harmonization@irtf.org
Subject: [Icnrg-harmonization] NDN use of nameless Data

There has been a bit of talk about CCNx making explicit the use of nameless objects, but I’d like to point out that one can do essentially the same thing in NDN using the Interest Link.  If CCNx were to adopt the Link approach to routing indirection, it could be done this way too (though using the ContentObjectHashRestriction field, not the implicit digest).

This is based on the 0.2-alpha-3 NDN packet format specification and the SNAMP-NDN-Scalability.pdf paper.  If I have misread something, please let me know.

The NDN spec says a Name is zero or more NameComponent.  Therefore, I can create a Data object with an empty name.  In an Interest, I can put one NameComponent of type ImplicitSha256DigestComponent and set Min/Max SuffixComponents to 0 and then include one or more Link objects in the Interest for routing.

My understanding of NDN is that because the ImplicitSha256DigestComponent is not in the FIB, a forwarder will forward via the Link.  The nameless Data Object – having 0 name components – will have a FullName of only its ImplicitSha256DigestComponent and that will match the name in the Interest.

I believe this use of NDN also maintains the property we were going after in CCNx nameless objects in that one cannot poison the cache by feting a Data object by hash that could then later be confused with a Data object being fetched by prefix or name (unless one put a 0 component name in the Interest with MaxSuffixComponents of at least 1 and used Link routing).

Marc