https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/slides-interim-2020-icnrg-02-sessa-ccninfo-update/
Review of the changes and additions to the new version 4.
New version 5 this week. The RG last call?
Code at https://cefore.net
Q (Colin Perkins): What is the link to the trace route and ping draft?
Review of updates from v.6 to v.7
Q (Colin Perkins): Will share full response from IANA but it requires to use less of IANA code points.
Changes from v.0 to v.1
Need discussion on protocol integration.
No questions.
Comment (Dirk Kutscher): Follow-up to the RG adoption comment on the last slide. This is an update to the CCNx document published earlier. The RG via the list to discuss the adoption of the draft as RG item. The chairs are positive to the idea.
Problem statement and solution overview.
Read the draft to get all the details: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-oran-icnrg-reflexive-forwarding-00
Q (Davide Pesavano): Multiple reflexive message handling? (did not hear the question well because of multiple reverberation or echoes)
Q (Cedric Westphal): What happens to the entries to the PIT entry?
Q (Dave Oran): For prefix, what if I have an object a/b/c/d/e/f/…/z and I do a prefix lookup of /a or /a/b or /a/b/c…, do I need to insert 25 indirect CS entries?
Q (Dave OranOran): Not my understanding of prefix lookup in NDN.
Comment (Lixia Zhang): It seems that one can simply use forwarding hint to support the function of the reflexive forwarding
Q (Dave Oran): Doesn’t using a forwarding hint allow a producer to launch the reflexive interests just about anywhere and not just back to the consumer? (taken off-line)
Question (Ken Calvert): The PIT token would be between trusting routers, no?
Summary of update.
QoS markers central to the next versions.
Comments (Dirk): Great to continue this work as it is an interesting concept.
Comment (Oran): People have signed up on the Google sheet to do reviews. Thanks!