Re: [icnrg] ICNRG progress

Ken Calvert <calvert@netlab.uky.edu> Tue, 10 March 2020 01:41 UTC

Return-Path: <calvert@netlab.uky.edu>
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 DCC283A0C78 for <icnrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Mar 2020 18:41:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.101
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.101 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_ALL=0.8, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no 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 L8tTimcQcObr for <icnrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Mar 2020 18:41:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.netlab.uky.edu (tosh.netlab.uky.edu [128.163.140.42]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7D7903A0C7C for <icnrg@irtf.org>; Mon, 9 Mar 2020 18:41:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from culp.local (cpe-96-29-182-38.kya.res.rr.com [96.29.182.38]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.netlab.uky.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 902B819CF0 for <icnrg@irtf.org>; Mon, 9 Mar 2020 21:41:49 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ken Calvert <calvert@netlab.uky.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2020 21:41:45 -0400
References: <mailman.104.1582574416.2917.icnrg@irtf.org>
To: icnrg@irtf.org
In-Reply-To: <mailman.104.1582574416.2917.icnrg@irtf.org>
Message-Id: <48BD9966-D362-405F-A7B1-1E5515F041AC@netlab.uky.edu>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/icnrg/Ixzwn6LBFYpwKVpjrgQdXAI5C9I>
Subject: Re: [icnrg] ICNRG progress
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: Tue, 10 Mar 2020 01:41:54 -0000

Dear ICNRG -

I recently read the CCNx semantics RFC.  I was a bit surprised to find nothing in it about "referential transparency" - the idea that interests for the same name should always return the same (content) bits.  That (no stated position) is understandable for ICN as a whole, but I expected that specific protocols would have some kind of statement about it (I think NDN requires it, but I'm not up on the latest NDN specs or code).

So, a question:  Is referential transparency a property of CCNx, or is it explicitly left up to the publisher, or what?  Or put another way, what, if anything, is a requestor entitled to assume about the result of different interests for the same name?

Thanks for any help.  And apologies if this is a dumb or non-useful question.

Ken