-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 63
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
NDN Packet Format Spec V 0.3 #229
Comments
I'm wondering if we should preserve ndn2013 or integrate 0.3 and update the parts in code where necessary (so ndn2013 evolves to something like ndn2018)? Any thoughts @blacksheeep |
I would update the packet format, I would argue there is no advantage of maintaining a stale version of a packet format. |
Apparently, there is basically no implementation which supports it (yet). I can't estimate yet how much it differs from 0.2 and 0.3 is still subject to change. On the other hand I also only have vague understanding of the number of features of 0.2.1 ccn-lite supports. |
We probably should also be aware that this is very likely to break the python scripts in |
There is implementation of NDN v0.3 now. |
NDN provides documentation for an updated packet format, the spec can be found here [1].
The new packet format looks promising. We should support that in the near future.
[1] https://named-data.net/doc/NDN-packet-spec/current/
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: