Project

General

Profile

Activity

From 02/02/2015 to 03/03/2015

03/03/2015

04:04 PM Feature #2531 (In Progress): LocalControlHeader
Anonymous
10:15 AM Feature #2531: LocalControlHeader
Sounds good. Since this is a low-use feature, there won't be a problem to change to a new approach at some point when... Anonymous

03/02/2015

03:27 PM Feature #2532: Remote Prefix Registration
Throwing the error was just my suggestion, not requirement.
I'm +1 with having only Transport.isLocal(), which o...
Alex Afanasyev
02:44 PM Feature #2532: Remote Prefix Registration
The application could know a priori: it COULD duplicate the logic in the Face constructor to know what type of Transp... Andrew Brown
02:16 PM Feature #2532: Remote Prefix Registration
No. I'm not suggesting adding anything to Face interface.
Without initiating connection (=not knowing IP), you can...
Alex Afanasyev
02:08 PM Feature #2532: Remote Prefix Registration
Are you suggesting #2 from note #29? Then I have to be connected to check if the transport is local and those two thi... Andrew Brown
01:55 PM Feature #2532: Remote Prefix Registration
Actually, the implementation of this doesn't really depend on ConnectionInfo. Transport.isLocal can throw when trans... Alex Afanasyev
01:49 PM Feature #2532: Remote Prefix Registration
My opinion about ConnectionInfo concept is recorded as part of issue #2571 Alex Afanasyev
01:32 PM Feature #2532: Remote Prefix Registration
I like it. No Face.isLocal(), just Transport.isLocal().
The problem now lies in the implementation. The only objec...
Andrew Brown
11:43 AM Feature #2532: Remote Prefix Registration
What about a slightly different way. I'm kind of considering what you want to do as a special case (therefore my sug... Alex Afanasyev
11:37 AM Feature #2532: Remote Prefix Registration
I agree with all of the points about abstraction. What I need is some way to know if I am connected to a local NFD or... Andrew Brown
11:22 AM Feature #2532: Remote Prefix Registration
I would still argue that these are unnecessary details that need to be handled by face itself.
I can only be sayin...
Alex Afanasyev
11:14 AM Feature #2532: Remote Prefix Registration
See #23... multiple modules accessing the same face and they want to know if it is local or not (they don't need/want... Andrew Brown
10:04 AM Feature #2532: Remote Prefix Registration
I wonder for the reason you would like to do it? Alex Afanasyev
08:55 AM Feature #2532: Remote Prefix Registration
Alex Afanasyev wrote:
> I'm thinking primarily about the use case. If the only use case (and should be in my opin...
Andrew Brown
01:52 PM Feature #2571: Reconsider the need for ConnectionInfo abstractions
Just a few missing details. Construction of Transport instance allow recording parameters necessary for this instance. Alex Afanasyev

02/26/2015

09:57 AM Task #2579: Provide send/sendData in Face() and deprecate in Transport
The callback interface should be a different discussion. I personally do not like that the callback is forced receiv... Alex Afanasyev
08:38 AM Task #2579: Provide send/sendData in Face() and deprecate in Transport
Hi Jeff,
Right now, the OnInterest callback passes a Transport to the application so it can give it the data packe...
Anonymous

02/25/2015

07:53 PM Task #2579: Provide send/sendData in Face() and deprecate in Transport
I think what you mentioned is not semantics, rather side effects, though not sure. May be it should be just "make d... Alex Afanasyev
07:16 PM Task #2579: Provide send/sendData in Face() and deprecate in Transport
Just so I am clear: What are the exact semantics requested of the library / forwarder by this call? ("Send" to the f... Jeff Burke
07:12 PM Task #2579: Provide send/sendData in Face() and deprecate in Transport
This should not be "send", as semantically we are not sending anything, rather make data available if it is requested... Alex Afanasyev
06:54 PM Task #2579 (Closed): Provide send/sendData in Face() and deprecate in Transport
send/sendData are most appropriately associated with Face. App should not need to use Transport object in typical si... Jeff Burke
05:50 PM Feature #2577 (Closed): Redesign Signature* classes
Signature classes do not need to be virtual or have virtual methods. I'm simply proposing to re-implement the design... Alex Afanasyev
05:44 PM Feature #2576 (New): ForwardingFlags should be removed
NFD RIB Management protocol defines two of the flags that exist in ForwardingFlags, but it should be implemented some... Alex Afanasyev
05:38 PM Bug #2575 (New): Unspecified fields should not be present in packets
Current implementation, does not follow the semantics of NDN packet format, where by default interests request any da... Alex Afanasyev
05:32 PM Feature #2574 (Closed): Explicit usage of time abstractions in public API
Public API should not use method names such as "setInterestLiftimeMilliseconds". Instead, time duration should be ca... Alex Afanasyev
05:30 PM Feature #2573 (Rejected): Remove support for encoding other than NDN-TLV
Alex Afanasyev
05:29 PM Bug #2572 (Closed): NDN packet does not define Interest.Selectors.AnswerOriginKind and it should not be used in the code
Boolean MustBeFresh should be used explicitly. Alex Afanasyev
05:27 PM Feature #2571 (New): Reconsider the need for ConnectionInfo abstractions
Alex Afanasyev
05:26 PM Feature #2570 (Abandoned): Refactoring of Exclude public interface
Exclude filter abstraction should provide a convenient interface to work with the exclude filter, not just container ... Alex Afanasyev
05:24 PM Feature #2569 (New): Reconsider necessity for "Node" class
Alex Afanasyev
05:23 PM Feature #2568 (Closed): Face.put(Data)
Although I agree with some semantical issues with `Face.put(Data)` method, it is necessary as Face should be the only... Alex Afanasyev
05:20 PM Feature #2567 (Closed): InterestFilter abstraction
While it is only possible to register a prefix with local NFD, the callback dispatch inside the Face can use a more p... Alex Afanasyev
05:17 PM Feature #2566 (Closed): Implement Face.setInterestFilter
There should be at least two forms of this method:
// atomic set interest filter (only internal face dispatch)...
Alex Afanasyev
04:57 PM Feature #2532: Remote Prefix Registration
Jeff Thompson wrote:
> > Actually... is it clearer?
>
> If you don't like how that looks, then I'd be happy if ...
Andrew Brown
04:54 PM Feature #2532: Remote Prefix Registration
Think of this use case: one module in your application creates a face and sets it up with security, etc. It then pass... Andrew Brown
04:02 PM Feature #2532: Remote Prefix Registration
> Actually... is it clearer?
If you don't like how that looks, then I'd be happy if you added an equals() method t...
Anonymous
03:58 PM Feature #2532: Remote Prefix Registration
I'm thinking primarily about the use case. If the only use case (and should be in my opinion) to check isLocal after... Alex Afanasyev
03:56 PM Feature #2532: Remote Prefix Registration
Alex, but the Transport can still know if its local or not without being connected, right? Andrew Brown
03:54 PM Feature #2532: Remote Prefix Registration
Actually... is it clearer?
```
if(connectionInfo_ == null || !((ConnectionInfo) connectionInfo).getHost()
...
Andrew Brown
03:54 PM Feature #2532: Remote Prefix Registration
I would thrown an exception in isLocal when transport is not connected. Alex Afanasyev
03:52 PM Feature #2532: Remote Prefix Registration
Sounds good to me. That check is comparing whether the references are the same, which they should be if ConnectionInf... Andrew Brown
03:46 PM Feature #2532: Remote Prefix Registration
In TcpTransport.isLocal, you check "connectionInfo != connectionInfo_":
https://github.com/named-data/jndn/blo...
Anonymous
03:28 PM Feature #2532: Remote Prefix Registration
No, Jeff and I had talked about actually connecting the transport when isLocal() is called but I don't think that is ... Andrew Brown
03:11 PM Feature #2532: Remote Prefix Registration
The use prefix registration is only possible after Face is actually connected to the remote end = DNS resolution is a... Alex Afanasyev
03:06 PM Feature #2532: Remote Prefix Registration
Ok, take a look at the current state:
- isLocal() exposed on Face, https://github.com/named-data/jndn/pull/6/file...
Andrew Brown
02:32 PM Feature #2532: Remote Prefix Registration
Yes, we can assume that ConnectionInfo will not change because it is the one defined by TcpTransport which doesn't ch... Anonymous
02:21 PM Feature #2532: Remote Prefix Registration
Yes, I'm having trouble figuring out the best way to do that, though. Because Node is the only one maintaining a refe... Andrew Brown
01:36 PM Feature #2532: Remote Prefix Registration
Hi Andrew. If TcpTransport.isLocal can do a costly DNS lookup, should it cache the result for the next call to regist... Anonymous
09:35 AM Feature #2532: Remote Prefix Registration
Updated UDP transport accordingly, see PR at https://github.com/named-data/jndn/pull/6. Like we talked about on Skype... Andrew Brown
03:51 PM Feature #2531: LocalControlHeader
Got it. It was just a little unclear what you meant by registering prefixes. Now I understand that you want to regis... Alex Afanasyev
03:37 PM Feature #2531: LocalControlHeader
Alex, I am no expert on the LocalControlHeader feature but from what Junxiao explained to me at the retreat I think I... Andrew Brown
03:15 PM Feature #2531: LocalControlHeader
Andrew, I'm a little bit confused how the need of creating routes depends on LocalControlHeader. This header is desi... Alex Afanasyev

02/24/2015

05:17 PM Feature #2532: Remote Prefix Registration
I have no other place to comment on the code. Udp face is never considered local, so udp transport's isLocal() can/s... Alex Afanasyev
03:46 PM Feature #2532: Remote Prefix Registration
I'm convinced. I initially wanted to hide the localhost/localhop complexity but not being able to explicitly choose c... Andrew Brown
03:12 PM Feature #2532: Remote Prefix Registration
I like the idea of a separate Face method to do remote prefix registration because it is not just a matter of changin... Anonymous
01:57 PM Feature #2532: Remote Prefix Registration
Alex and Jeff, take a look at this revision and associated integration test. In the integration-tests directory, run ... Andrew Brown
11:48 AM Feature #2532: Remote Prefix Registration
I'm not saying that the remote registration function is not useful. I was just thinking that switch between remote a... Alex Afanasyev
10:46 AM Task #2444: Simplify KeyChain
Clearer discussion at http://redmine.named-data.net/issues/2451 Andrew Brown

02/21/2015

01:01 PM Feature #2532: Remote Prefix Registration
What do you mean by non-standard? If the NFD provides a feature that allows remote registration, why shouldn't my app... Andrew Brown
11:47 AM Feature #2532: Remote Prefix Registration
For me, this use of remote registration is non-standard and I wouldn't add mechanics to automatically handle it. My... Alex Afanasyev
11:24 AM Feature #2532: Remote Prefix Registration
I tested with NFD v0.3 and the /localhop/nfd/rib/register works as expected (the prerequisites are setting command si... Andrew Brown

02/19/2015

09:52 AM Task #2543 (Closed): Port SegmentFetcher
Port SegmentFetcher from ndn-cxx. (Also in PyNDN, NDN-JS and jNDN.) CompleteCallback should provide a Blob. Internall... Anonymous
08:40 AM Feature #2531: LocalControlHeader
Sounds good to me; that's all I need right now to do what I need to do. Andrew Brown

02/18/2015

04:46 PM Feature #2531: LocalControlHeader
For starters, I'd suggest supporting a "set" for local control headers in the outgoing interest and a "get" for the i... Anonymous

02/17/2015

10:43 AM Feature #2532 (Closed): Remote Prefix Registration
My application needs the ability to register prefixes from a node that does not have a local NFD. The current release... Andrew Brown
10:40 AM Feature #2531 (Closed): LocalControlHeader
From within my application, I need to programmatically create routes on the NFD and I want to create routes back to o... Andrew Brown
 

Also available in: Atom