Re: [icnrg] Comments on reflexive draft

"David R. Oran" <> Wed, 08 April 2020 15:47 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BF053A0B3D for <>; Wed, 8 Apr 2020 08:47:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xr1L_o40Ho0r for <>; Wed, 8 Apr 2020 08:47:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:fca8:1530::c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E3A953A0993 for <>; Wed, 8 Apr 2020 08:47:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ([IPv6:2601:184:407f:80ce:95bd:8297:1ee1:a4]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4+deb7u1) with ESMTP id 038FlKCC016634 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 8 Apr 2020 08:47:22 -0700
From: "David R. Oran" <>
To: Ken Calvert <>
Cc: Dirk Kutscher <>,
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2020 11:47:15 -0400
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.13.1r5680)
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [icnrg] Comments on reflexive draft
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: Wed, 08 Apr 2020 15:47:29 -0000

On 8 Apr 2020, at 11:16, Ken Calvert wrote:

> Gents - Overall it reads really well and does a great motivating the 
> proposal.  And obviously feel free to ignore any suggestions.
> 1. Introduction
> 6th paragraph: "built on top of on reliable" [delete 2nd "on"]

> 3. Overview of the Reflexive Forwarding Design
> Bullet 1. ("The Reflexive Interest needs..."): "This name is what the 
> originating consumer will use to match against the Data object ... it 
> wishes the producer to fetch..."  I found this construction a bit 
> confusing; suggest something like "this name (or an extension) will 
> refer to the Data object(s) the originating consumer prepares to send 
> to the producer..."  That also avoids the anthropomorphism ("wishes").
Got it, although I prefer to avoid using the term “send” since it 
introduces a push-like mental model. How about
“This name is what the originating consumer will use to match against 
the Data object (or objects - more on this later) that the producer may 
request by issuing the Reflexive Interest.”

> Bullet 2. ("There has to be a FIB..."):  Suggest "At each forwarder 
> along the path from producer to consumer, a FIB entry must match 
> (LNPM) this name...".
Close - how about “At each forwarder along the inverse path from 
producer to consumer, a FIB entry must be present that matches this name 
via LNPM,…”.

> Also "deign" -> design, later in the paragraph.
Got it.

> Bullet 3. ("There has to be coupling...")  "...this accomplished by 
> the way..." -> this is accomplished by the way

> 4. Naming of Reflexive Interests
> 1st paragraph: "...enough information in their initial Interest" -> 
> enough information in its initial Interest

> Also, "...enough state must be provided by the consumer..." - I found 
> this a bit confusing.  The forwarder creates the state, from info 
> provided by the consumer.  Suggest "enough information must be 
> available for the forwarders to construct a FIB entry...", or just 
> change "state" to "information".
I made the simpler change of “state” to “information”

> [I have some additional thoughts about the content of this section, 
> but will send them separately.]
Looking forward to it!

> 7.1 Achieving Remote Method ...
> 2nd paragraph: "computating" -> computing

> 8.1.2 Interactions with Interest Lifetime
> 4th paragraph: "...a reflexive Interest arrives from upstream matching 
> the..." - suggest deleting "from upstream", it's not clearly defined 
> and doesn't seem necessary.
Ok, deleted.

> last paragraph: "While the above approach..." - this sentence is 
> garbled, the first clause seems to be missing a predicate.
yes, added “…avoids the timeout problem,”

> last sentence: "Interest-Datsa exchange" -> Interest-Data exchange

> Cheers,
> Ken
These will show up in -01, which we’ll issue in a few days after 
waiting to see what other comments surface form other ICNRG’ers.