<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:70.85pt 70.85pt 56.7pt 70.85pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple" style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">Thanks Tomaso; yes, I think I agree that the underlying link characteristics should drive the design choice (or even the real-time adaptive choice, if that’s possible) of the LTP segment size. The whole idea is that large bundles (sent
as LTP blocks) can be split into smaller segments exactly to allow good fits into the link layer and possibly to facilitate FEC.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> v/r,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> --keith<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">From:
</span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">Tomaso.deCola@dlr.de <Tomaso.deCola@dlr.de><br>
<b>Date: </b>Wednesday, October 27, 2021 at 8:42 AM<br>
<b>To: </b>Dr. Keith L Scott <kscott@mitre.org>, marc.sanchez.net@jpl.nasa.gov <marc.sanchez.net@jpl.nasa.gov><br>
<b>Cc: </b>sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org <sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org><br>
<b>Subject: </b>[EXT] LTPv2 -- LTP encapsulation point<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">Hi Keith, Hi Marc,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">just looking at the commented version of what will be the red book for LTPv2 I read that there is a question mark as to how efficiently encapsulate LTP segments into Encapsulation Packets, especially in the case of large
packets which might be affected by large packet loss rates. It is certainly true that EPP is not capable of doing any slicing, so that if we have a large LTP segment, we’ll still have a large EPP packet. On the other hand TM natively supports (and USLP should
do the same) the possibility of splitting a packet into smaller transfer frames, whose size is ruled by the specific channel coding scheme implemented by the underlying C&S sublayer (that typically guarantee reasonably low frame error rates). As such, I’d
see the problem the other way round, the transfer frame can have a maximum frame length (that can be a fixed one) and in turn it’s up to the higher layers to decide how much could the specific segment length be to trade off delay, packet loss, and achievable
data rate. Moreover I know that one LTP managed parameter is indeed the maximum segment length, so that in my view its selection is mission specific in order to meet some KPIs.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">From this reasoning, I don’t see in fact a big problem in claiming that one LTP segment is mapped onto 1 EPP segment. Or have I misunderstood your concern? The tuning of the segment size is certainly fundamental for the
proper mission design, but I don’t think is a matter of a blue book.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">Best Regards,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">Tomaso<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>