IETF Logo Mail Archive

[icnrg] Directions on CCNx TimeTLVs: draft-gundogan-icnrg-ccnx-timetlv

"Thomas C. Schmidt" <t.schmidt@haw-hamburg.de> Wed, 20 November 2019 04:11 UTC

Return-Path: <t.schmidt@haw-hamburg.de>
X-Original-To: icnrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: icnrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DD6E12021C for <icnrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Nov 2019 20:11:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 4Q9aE3cnOfxG for <icnrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Nov 2019 20:11:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx3.haw-public.haw-hamburg.de (mx3.haw-public.haw-hamburg.de [141.22.6.2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 479B21201EF for <icnrg@irtf.org>; Tue, 19 Nov 2019 20:11:50 -0800 (PST)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.69,220,1571695200"; d="scan'208";a="53808132"
Received: from hub01.mailcluster.haw-hamburg.de ([141.22.24.50]) by mail3.is.haw-hamburg.de with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 20 Nov 2019 05:11:47 +0100
Received: from CAS02.mailcluster.haw-hamburg.de (2002:8d16:183d::8d16:183d) by HUB01.mailcluster.haw-hamburg.de (2002:8d16:1832::8d16:1832) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.468.0; Wed, 20 Nov 2019 05:11:47 +0100
Received: from [31.133.129.205] (141.22.250.35) by haw-mailer.haw-hamburg.de (141.22.24.61) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.468.0; Wed, 20 Nov 2019 05:11:46 +0100
To: "icnrg@irtf.org" <icnrg@irtf.org>
From: "Thomas C. Schmidt" <t.schmidt@haw-hamburg.de>
Message-ID: <73a5a9ff-03c2-3b63-576d-8811c84b90c4@haw-hamburg.de>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2019 12:11:44 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Originating-IP: [141.22.250.35]
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/icnrg/9V0agGt-ypGnaR208oqtGTpFZng>
Subject: [icnrg] Directions on CCNx TimeTLVs: draft-gundogan-icnrg-ccnx-timetlv
X-BeenThere: icnrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Information-Centric Networking research group discussion list <icnrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/icnrg>, <mailto:icnrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/icnrg/>
List-Post: <mailto:icnrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:icnrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/icnrg>, <mailto:icnrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2019 04:11:53 -0000

Folks,

following up on our presentation of draft-gundogan-icnrg-ccnx-timetlv:

This proposes to replace time deltas in CCNx by logarithmic encodings 
and (maybe) some absolute timer values by deltas w.r.t. the signature time.

We solicit feedback: Do you agree on going this way, or do you suspect 
this to be harmful?

Best,
  Thomas
-- 

Prof. Dr. Thomas C. Schmidt
° Hamburg University of Applied Sciences                  Berliner Tor 7 °
° Dept. Informatik, Internet Technologies Group   20099 Hamburg, Germany °
° http://inet.haw-hamburg.de/members/schmidt      Fon: +49-40-42875-8452 °

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email