Project

General

Profile

Feature #4577

Naming conventions: use typed name components instead of markers

Added by Junxiao Shi 9 months ago. Updated about 2 months ago.

Status:
Feedback
Priority:
Normal
Assignee:
Start date:
Due date:
% Done:

70%

Estimated time:
3.00 h

Description

Naming Conventions revision 1 encodes segment number, version number, timestamp, and sequence number as a GenericNameComponent where the TLV-VALUE has a one-byte marker followed by a NonNegativeInteger.
NDN Packet Format v0.3 introduces typed name components. They are intended to replace markers.
This issue is to reserve four NameComponent TLV-TYPE numbers for segment number, version number, timestamp, and sequence number, and publish a new revision of naming conventions document that use typed name components instead of markers. Implementation of such scheme will be separate issues.


Related issues

Blocks ndn-cxx - Feature #4777: Develop API for typed name components in naming conventionIn Progress

History

#1 Updated by Junxiao Shi 5 months ago

#2 Updated by Junxiao Shi 5 months ago

  • Description updated (diff)

#3 Updated by Junxiao Shi 5 months ago

  • Status changed from New to In Progress
  • Assignee set to Junxiao Shi
  • % Done changed from 0 to 20

I'm assigning type 33-37 for naming convention usage in NameComponentType rev10.

#4 Updated by Junxiao Shi 4 months ago

The next step is to update Name Convention technical report. Where is the source code for NDN-TR-0022?

#5 Updated by Junxiao Shi 3 months ago

  • Blocks deleted (Feature #4706: RDR packet format specification)

#6 Updated by Alex Afanasyev 3 months ago

It was in ndn-memos repository. Created a new repo for it with old text in https://gitlab.com/named-data/tr-ndn-0022-naming-conventions

#7 Updated by Junxiao Shi 3 months ago

https://gitlab.com/named-data/tr-ndn-0022-naming-conventions

That is inaccessible.

I found https://github.com/named-data/memo-naming-conventions and it seems to be the same. Shall I send PR to this GitHub repository?

#8 Updated by Alex Afanasyev 3 months ago

No. You should have access after you accept the invitation from gitlab.

#9 Updated by Junxiao Shi 3 months ago

  1. Why isn’t the GitLab repository public, like the others?
  2. GitHub repository should have a link to its GitLab replacement.

#10 Updated by Junxiao Shi 3 months ago

  • Status changed from In Progress to Resolved
  • % Done changed from 20 to 70

#12 Updated by Jeff Thompson 3 months ago

I repeat Junxiao's question. Why are we using a private GitLab repo?

#13 Updated by Davide Pesavento 2 months ago

  • Status changed from Resolved to Feedback

#14 Updated by Junxiao Shi about 2 months ago

The GitLab repository has been made public. Please review my merge request.

#15 Updated by Junxiao Shi about 2 months ago

  • Blocks Feature #4777: Develop API for typed name components in naming convention added

Also available in: Atom PDF