Re: [icnrg] ICNRG progress

Ken Calvert <> Tue, 10 March 2020 01:41 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCC283A0C78 for <>; Mon, 9 Mar 2020 18:41:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.101
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id L8tTimcQcObr for <>; Mon, 9 Mar 2020 18:41:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7D7903A0C7C for <>; Mon, 9 Mar 2020 18:41:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from culp.local ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 902B819CF0 for <>; Mon, 9 Mar 2020 21:41:49 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ken Calvert <>
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, 09 Mar 2020 21:41:45 -0400
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [icnrg] ICNRG progress
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Information-Centric Networking research group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-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.