Project

General

Profile

Activity

From 02/05/2015 to 03/06/2015

03/06/2015

02:44 PM Bug #2575: Unspecified fields should not be present in packets
This issue is NOT CCL and has limited relation to "deprecating" of other packet support: why if I didn't specify Must... Alex Afanasyev
02:41 PM Bug #2572: NDN packet does not define Interest.Selectors.AnswerOriginKind and it should not be used in the code
I created this in jndn. In my opinion, jndn should not have had support for ndnx as it was deprecated at the time of... Alex Afanasyev
02:35 PM Feature #2567: InterestFilter abstraction
I personally prefer this to be implemented in jNDN, as it is what has high priority for android applications. Alex Afanasyev
02:33 PM Feature #2571: Reconsider the need for ConnectionInfo abstractions
This should not be part of CCL at all, neither CCL should say anything about transports (may be just general about tr... Alex Afanasyev
02:28 PM Feature #2569: Reconsider necessity for "Node" class
I created this issue for jndn, as it applies specifically there. It is not related to NDN-CCL.
Without code refac...
Alex Afanasyev
02:23 PM Feature #2566: Implement Face.setInterestFilter
One form (2) is a convenience method to do prefix registration and setting up dispatch.
Form (1) is just to set up...
Alex Afanasyev
12:40 PM Feature #2531 (Closed): LocalControlHeader
I added integration test TestLocalControlHeader. Merged to master. Anonymous
11:06 AM Feature #2531: LocalControlHeader
I take that back. The documentation says that the enable local control header command only affects the face which rec... Anonymous
11:03 AM Feature #2531: LocalControlHeader
The integration test would have to modify NFD to send LocalControlHeader packets. So I'm going to delay writing the i... Anonymous

03/05/2015

05:43 PM Feature #2532 (Closed): Remote Prefix Registration
Branch 'remote-prefix-registration' merged. Anonymous
03:33 AM Feature #2532: Remote Prefix Registration
As suggested, I moved TestRemotePrefixRegistration from integration-tests to examples. Anonymous
05:40 PM Feature #2531: LocalControlHeader
I want to write an integration test and merge tomorrow.
Since you said you don't need to set the outgoing Interest...
Anonymous
04:06 PM Feature #2531: LocalControlHeader
Makes sense. When are you thinking of merging and releasing? Andrew Brown
03:51 PM Feature #2531: LocalControlHeader
> why don't we just expose one getter/setter, e.g. getLocalControlHeader() ... it would be consistent with how getMet... Anonymous
03:23 PM Feature #2531: LocalControlHeader
Looks good to me. (One minor question re: Data/Interest API: why don't we just expose one getter/setter, e.g. getLoca... Andrew Brown
11:40 AM Feature #2531: LocalControlHeader
Hi Andrew. Please check out the branch issue/2531-LocalControlHeader: https://github.com/named-data/jndn/commits/issu... Anonymous
03:47 PM Task #2543: Port SegmentFetcher
I have no issues with porting. I cannot fully agree that this is related to NDN-CCL. This is just an utility helper... Alex Afanasyev
03:37 PM Task #2543 (In Progress): Port SegmentFetcher
Ported SegmentFetcher to jNDN and made TestListRib, etc. use it. Anonymous
11:20 AM Task #2620 (Closed): Interest setter methods should return this
In the Data class, the setter methods like setName() return this so that you can chain calls to update values. http:/... Anonymous

03/04/2015

11:05 PM Feature #2570: Refactoring of Exclude public interface
+1 to consider this. Moving to NDN-CCL unless there is a need to consider it in jNDN first. Jeff Burke
11:04 PM Feature #2566: Implement Face.setInterestFilter
Could you explain why?
Moving to NDN-CCL unless there is a reason to only look at this in jNDN.
Jeff Burke
11:03 PM Feature #2567: InterestFilter abstraction
Moving to NDN-CCL unless there's a reason to consider in jNDN first? Jeff Burke
11:02 PM Feature #2569: Reconsider necessity for "Node" class
I can see the point on this and will have to revisit with JeffT what the original motivation was for the Node. (We h... Jeff Burke
10:59 PM Feature #2568: Face.put(Data)
+1, we will work on this. Jeff Burke
10:59 PM Bug #2572: NDN packet does not define Interest.Selectors.AnswerOriginKind and it should not be used in the code
NDN-CCL issue. Essentially duplicates #2575. Related to deprecating support for NDNx. See responses to other related... Jeff Burke
10:57 PM Feature #2573 (Rejected): Remove support for encoding other than NDN-TLV
Please respond to my email about a process for this, send 10/10/14 and resent 10/26/14, 1/12/15, 3/4/15. Jeff Burke
10:52 PM Feature #2574: Explicit usage of time abstractions in public API
This is not a jNDN specific issue. Moved to NDN-CCL. Jeff Burke
10:47 PM Bug #2575: Unspecified fields should not be present in packets
This requires deprecating AnswerOriginKind support in NDN-CCL (or at least jNDN) and phasing out the NDNx packet form... Jeff Burke
10:39 PM Feature #2576: ForwardingFlags should be removed
+1 but does it need to be considered across all CCL? Jeff Burke
10:38 PM Feature #2577: Redesign Signature* classes
The basis for design for jndn is NDN-CCL, not ndn-cxx. Should we move this to a NDN-CCL issue and discuss more broad... Jeff Burke
10:31 PM Feature #2532: Remote Prefix Registration
To resolve AlexA's points earlier -
Agreed that the logic and state for isLocal() goes in Transport().
Each ...
Jeff Burke
02:26 PM Feature #2532: Remote Prefix Registration
Good point, it's more an example than a test. Because it has some setup involved (potentially modifying the NFD confi... Andrew Brown
11:14 AM Feature #2532: Remote Prefix Registration
Ah, now I see the documentation in the Java file. It is clear enough. I was able to run it. It registers a prefix and... Anonymous
10:08 AM Feature #2532: Remote Prefix Registration
Jeff, the syntax for running the integration test should be `mvn test -DclassName=TestRemotePrefixRegistration -Dip=[... Andrew Brown
08:56 AM Feature #2532: Remote Prefix Registration
Hi Andrew. Your existing pull request https://github.com/named-data/jndn/pull/6 adds a Face method isLocal() which si... Anonymous
10:31 PM Feature #2571: Reconsider the need for ConnectionInfo abstractions
Can you expand on this? Jeff Burke

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