Re: [icnrg] CCNx drafts

[Ravi Ravindran <[e-mail]>]

Hi Nacho,

Can you clarify if Nameless Objects are within the scope of these draft ?. I tried looking for its reference and couldn’t find it in the drafts. These are some of my concerns if nameless objects are in scope:


1.       With Nameless Objects the Interest names are locators and Contentobject hash digest which serve as an identifier is part of the hash restriction. Though at this point the protocol doesn’t  separate the ID/locator name space explicitly in the protocol, it will be good to clarify that names can also be locators when nameless objects are requested. Towards this, I would suggest to define locator names as another namespace  in the semantics document and differentiate it from the names assigned by applications i.e. the producers. This would also be in line with the Manifest proposal which distinguishes Hash IDs and Locators in its definition. This ID/Locator name space separation is what we have been arguing for through the forwarding-label draft.  To complement the nameless object proposal, we also updated the draft with the use case of using Content HashIDs with forwarding-labels in Section 9.2 of the draft https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ravi-ccn-forwarding-label-02



2.       Also I would suggest to introduce nameless objects as a new type of content object itself, instead of it being defined as a regular content object which doesn’t have a name TLV for two reasons: Firstly, producers may choose to publish named and nameless version at the same time, explicitly distinguishing them would help forwarders to apply appropriate processing; Second, this differentiates from the case of a malformed named object for which the router may end up computing its hash unnecessarily.



Regards,
Ravi

From: icnrg [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of [e-mail]
Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2016 2:00 PM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: [icnrg] CCNx drafts

Hi folks.

We are interested in moving the CCNx documents forward. The base docs, moving them towards publication. The ccnx:// one adopting it and moving it towards publication.

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-irtf-icnrg-ccnxmessages-02
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-irtf-icnrg-ccnxsemantics-02
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mosko-icnrg-ccnxurischeme-00

The drafts have been pretty stable for a while. We made some minor updates to the documents with the Paris feedback and we will be discussing these tomorrow. We know this can be a lengthy process and we wanted to start the discussion on the list.

Please start voicing feedback and concerns.  The base documents are group documents and we would like the group to be ok with what they say.

Cheers,

Nacho

--
Nacho (Ignacio) Solis
Protocol Architect
Principal Scientist
Palo Alto Research Center (PARC)
[phone]
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>