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

Lixia Zhang <lixia@cs.ucla.edu> Tue, 06 September 2016 00:12 UTC

Return-Path: <lixia@cs.ucla.edu>
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 EF84312B0F0 for <icnrg-harmonization@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Sep 2016 17:12:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.408
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.408 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.508, 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 UvqWMWLRJWQc for <icnrg-harmonization@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Sep 2016 17:12:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zimbra.cs.ucla.edu (zimbra.cs.ucla.edu [131.179.128.68]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4595112B097 for <icnrg-harmonization@irtf.org>; Mon, 5 Sep 2016 17:12:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id F14B4160D74; Mon, 5 Sep 2016 17:12:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zimbra.cs.ucla.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zimbra.cs.ucla.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10032) with ESMTP id FP0FEMYnh0A1; Mon, 5 Sep 2016 17:12:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FE65160DFF; Mon, 5 Sep 2016 17:12:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at zimbra.cs.ucla.edu
Received: from zimbra.cs.ucla.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zimbra.cs.ucla.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id cEPTHI0vSQyo; Mon, 5 Sep 2016 17:12:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.7] (cpe-76-91-246-89.socal.res.rr.com [76.91.246.89]) by zimbra.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 34DCE160D74; Mon, 5 Sep 2016 17:12:02 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_1A71896A-2943-444C-BE3E-4B2222396BFA"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
From: Lixia Zhang <lixia@cs.ucla.edu>
In-Reply-To: <92ABC834-3C47-4B3C-9D85-83493B8B9414@parc.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2016 17:12:01 -0700
Message-Id: <E30DB839-01C8-42C0-BCE8-0381AFC2BC90@cs.ucla.edu>
References: <92ABC834-3C47-4B3C-9D85-83493B8B9414@parc.com>
To: Marc.Mosko@parc.com
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/icnrg-harmonization/fn-pKxHsrXvV8TutxgusgV2uYdk>
Cc: icnrg-harmonization@irtf.org
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: Tue, 06 Sep 2016 00:12:06 -0000

On Sep 1, 2016, at 8:23 AM, Marc.Mosko@parc.com wrote:
> 
> There has been a bit of talk about CCNx making explicit the use of nameless objects, but Iā€™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.

Personal opinion: I am afraid that the above reflects a misunderstanding of NDN names and the role of LINK object.

 
> The NDN spec says a Name is zero or more NameComponent. 

I do not agree with the "nameless object" concept (in fact CCNx 1.x's nameless object indeed has a name, the content hash), and I do not believe NDN names allow zero component. 
 
I just looked at the spec and did not see such statement; I searched the page, the only appearance of the word "zero" is in describing how to "unambiguously represent name components that would collide with the use of . and .. for relative URIs"

If I missed anything, please point out to me and we'll fix it.

Lixia

PS: there seems a huge conceptual confusion about names and locators, that we really to clean up someday soon.

> 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 ā€“ having 0 name components ā€“ 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
> _______________________________________________
> Icnrg-harmonization mailing list
> Icnrg-harmonization@irtf.org <mailto:Icnrg-harmonization@irtf.org>
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/icnrg-harmonization <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/icnrg-harmonization>