IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [icnrg] [EXT][Nfd-dev] about draft-irtf-icnrg-IPOC

Lixia Zhang <lixia@cs.ucla.edu> Sun, 26 July 2020 22:13 UTC

Return-Path: <lixia@cs.ucla.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 158723A14DE for <icnrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 26 Jul 2020 15:13:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 XodHGsrNMzJL for <icnrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 26 Jul 2020 15:13:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zimbra.cs.ucla.edu (zimbra.cs.ucla.edu [131.179.128.68]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EF7863A14DA for <icnrg@irtf.org>; Sun, 26 Jul 2020 15:13:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9517160091; Sun, 26 Jul 2020 15:13:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zimbra.cs.ucla.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zimbra.cs.ucla.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10032) with ESMTP id gi64id-UFvUV; Sun, 26 Jul 2020 15:13:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0405D1600A5; Sun, 26 Jul 2020 15:13:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at zimbra.cs.ucla.edu
Received: from zimbra.cs.ucla.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zimbra.cs.ucla.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id gDJhtT6iBxQN; Sun, 26 Jul 2020 15:13:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.10] (cpe-76-91-255-77.socal.res.rr.com [76.91.255.77]) by zimbra.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BEF59160091; Sun, 26 Jul 2020 15:13:10 -0700 (PDT)
From: Lixia Zhang <lixia@cs.ucla.edu>
Message-Id: <41D5702B-4C2B-488B-A4AE-FF417A7B58FC@cs.ucla.edu>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_50A5C415-12EE-49FF-A0FA-F3BB4B09AB4B"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.80.23.2.2\))
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2020 15:13:10 -0700
In-Reply-To: <CAOFH+OYuX0f33=3FhhVi-hiJV9-ih-z8yyQMeHjRW6B=wN-cVw@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: "nfd-dev@lists.cs.ucla.edu" <nfd-dev@lists.cs.ucla.edu>, ICNRG <icnrg@irtf.org>, Susmit Shannigrahi <sshannigrahi@tntech.edu>
To: Junxiao Shi <shijunxiao@email.arizona.edu>
References: <69599899-EF86-49F0-8CAB-228C8AC148CB@cs.ucla.edu> <CAOFH+OYuX0f33=3FhhVi-hiJV9-ih-z8yyQMeHjRW6B=wN-cVw@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.80.23.2.2)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/icnrg/gvq5YrYK_RvfSzOPeoGHXuhkBvc>
Subject: Re: [icnrg] [EXT][Nfd-dev] about draft-irtf-icnrg-IPOC
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: Sun, 26 Jul 2020 22:13:14 -0000

> On Jul 19, 2020, at 8:31 AM, Junxiao Shi <shijunxiao@email.arizona.edu> wrote:
> 
> Dear folks
> 
> I wouldn't get into the "payload in Interest" debate, but I'd say something about forwarder memory consumption: two of three NDN forwarder implementations consume the same amount of memory regardless of AppParameters (payload) field.

I knew I would not be able to keep up ahead of the time:-(
Junxiao, I realized that the comments in my msg was wrong as soon as the msg went out (I'll explain in a later reply), but you seem falling into similar trap; I would not cite specific implementation constraints in an architecture design discussion.

Lixia

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email