## 1 Introduction  
The Information-Centric Networking (ICN) architecture is seen as a promising network model to enable environments for the Internet of Things (IoT). These environments are enabled by multiple technologies, including established research fields such as wireless sensor networks, control systems and automation. There are a series of identified requirements that need to be met for ICN to be successfully implemented for IoT [1; 2; 3]. One of the identified requirements is to have a naming and addressing strategy to successfully manage and communicate billions of constrained low-power devices [4]. Another identified requirement is seamless mobility as can be seen from the scenario list in [5]. Within the mobility requirements, a particularly complex requirement for ICN is the need for efficient push-based communication models [6]. A final identified requirement is the need for real-time support. In 1982, [PERSON] emphasized that correctly defining and naming network objects could enable seamless connectivity [7]. In the paper, the author proposed the naming of four elemental network objects (services, nodes, attachment points and paths). These names can then be leveraged through bindings that permit one to go from a service to a node, a node to an attachment point and an attachment point to a path. The important point is that a service may run at one of more nodes and may need to move from one node to another without losing its identity as a service. A similar logic is applied to nodes, with the paper explaining that a node may connect to one or more network attachment points and may need to move from one attachment point to another without losing its identity as a node. Finally, the paper mentioned that a given pair of attachment points may be connected by one or more paths, and that those paths may need to change with time without affecting the identity and the attachment points. [PERSON]'s paper was considered a fundamental work for naming network objects and was published by the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) as RFC 1498 in 1993 [8]. The definitions used in this work have maintained their relevance in computer network research; however, it is clear that the concept has not reached a commonly converged implementation as can be seen from the number of mobility related enhancements in [9], 18 years after the publication of [PERSON]'s work. A key reason for this might be that [PERSON]'s work did not offer any guideline for what properties the names of the identified objects should take. Some researchers consider that the issues current networks are facing stem from the engineering trade-offs made when these networks were originally designed. The most famous example is the migration from IPv4 addresses using a classful network design to using Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR). Although CIDR was successfully integrated into the IPv4 Internet, delaying the urgency of the problems of routing state and address depletion, it is considered a short-term solution because it does not change the fundamental Internet routing or addressing architectures [10]. The issues that necessitated CIDR have not been solved and it may be specifically because the routing and addressing architecture was not modified. As Internet usage has increased, network reliability has become more important, making fundamental changes to the network architecture unacceptable without a considerable amount of clear evidence. In such cases, a clean slate network architecture, a complete redesign of the network, its objects and components, can offer the required flexibility to modify fundamental aspects of a network architecture and test them without affecting the usage of current networks. Such attempts can provide the technology that could finally completely solve the issues or discover a method that was not apparent due to the initial unmodifiable trade-offs of current network architectures [11]. A potential clean slate network architecture is the Information-Centric Networking (ICN) architecture.