<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=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Wingdings;
panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:굴림;
panose-1:2 11 6 0 0 1 1 1 1 1;}
@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;}
@font-face
{font-family:"맑은 고딕";
panose-1:2 11 5 3 2 0 0 2 0 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"\@맑은 고딕";}
@font-face
{font-family:"\@굴림";
panose-1:2 11 6 0 0 1 1 1 1 1;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoPlainText, li.MsoPlainText, div.MsoPlainText
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"글자만 Char";
margin:0cm;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.Char
{mso-style-name:"글자만 Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:글자만;
font-family:"맑은 고딕";}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"맑은 고딕";
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:221910549;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:-1041974462 67698689 67698691 67698693 67698689 67698691 67698693 67698689 67698691 67698693;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l0:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l0:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l0:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l0:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l0:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l0:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l1
{mso-list-id:1913195130;
mso-list-template-ids:1409344862;}
@list l1:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:36.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l1:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:72.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l1:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:108.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l1:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:144.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l1:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:180.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l1:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:216.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l1:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:252.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l1:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:288.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l1:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:324.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0cm;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0cm;}
--></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="KO" link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72" style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="word-break:break-hangul"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"맑은 고딕"">I think Keith thought it as if the last CP was missing.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="word-break:break-hangul"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"맑은 고딕"">Immediately NACK RS can save time as amount of the difference between current time and the last CP</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"맑은 고딕"">’<span lang="EN-US">s
arrival time. I think the effect can be negligible when bandwidth is very high and a session block length is relatively small, so saving time is order of ms. Of course this effect signifies as big as an RTT when the last CP from a sender is lost during transmission.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="word-break:break-hangul"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"맑은 고딕""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="word-break:break-hangul"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"맑은 고딕"">But I do like the way of
</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"맑은 고딕"">“<span lang="EN-US">immediately RS</span>”<span lang="EN-US">. However the immediately discretionary RS NACK can quickly burn out the return link bandwidth when continuous segment losses are happening
while for independent segment loss it will be reasonable. There should be some optimization and I think this concept make LTP be expandable in various space environment.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="word-break:break-hangul"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"맑은 고딕""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="word-break:break-hangul"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"맑은 고딕"">Cheol<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="word-break:break-hangul"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"맑은 고딕""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US">From:</span></b><span lang="EN-US"> sburleig.sb@gmail.com <sburleig.sb@gmail.com>
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, April 5, 2022 4:10 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Dr. Keith L Scott <kscott@mitre.org>; Carlo Caini <carlo.caini@unibo.it>; tomaso.decola@dlr.de;
</span><span style="font-family:굴림">구철회</span><span lang="EN-US"> <chkoo@kari.re.kr>; dstanton@keltik.co.uk<br>
<b>Cc:</b> sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> RE: [Sis-dtn] [EXT] Re: Positive reception claim vs. Negative reception claim in LTP Report Segment preparation and processing<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Keith, I think this isn’t quite right.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Suppose we’re sending a block that is 1 Megabyte in size, split into 10,000 segments of 100 bytes each. Suppose the OWLT is 240 seconds and the transmission rate is 800 kbps (so 100,000 bytes per second).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Suppose the 3<sup>rd</sup> segment is lost. The receiver will detect this loss when the 4<sup>th</sup> segment is received. That segment will have left the antenna .04 seconds after transmission began, and it will arrive
at the receiver 240 seconds later. The receiver will transmit a report segment immediately; let’s ignore the processing and radiation time for issuing the report and say that the report is received at the sender 240 seconds after the arrival of the 4<sup>th</sup>
segment – so 480.04 seconds after transmission began. That’s the time at which retransmission can be initiated, right?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Now suppose there is no further data loss. The EOB CP leaves the antenna 10 seconds after transmission began and arrives at the receiver 240 seconds later. The earlier report is still en route to the sender, so the
lost segment has not yet been retransmitted. The receiver transmits the CP-triggered report immediately, at 250 seconds after transmission began. That report is received at the sender 240 seconds after arrival of the last segment, so 490 seconds after transmission
began; that’s the earliest time at which retransmission can be initiated.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">So it seems to me that the gap-triggered RS has reduced closure latency by 9.96 seconds, not by 1 RTT. What have I got wrong?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Scott<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US">From:</span></b><span lang="EN-US"> Dr. Keith L Scott <<a href="mailto:kscott@mitre.org">kscott@mitre.org</a>>
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, April 4, 2022 11:50 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Carlo Caini <<a href="mailto:carlo.caini@unibo.it">carlo.caini@unibo.it</a>>;
<a href="mailto:tomaso.decola@dlr.de">tomaso.decola@dlr.de</a>; <a href="mailto:sburleig.sb@gmail.com">
sburleig.sb@gmail.com</a>; <a href="mailto:chkoo@kari.re.kr">chkoo@kari.re.kr</a>;
<a href="mailto:dstanton@keltik.co.uk">dstanton@keltik.co.uk</a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a href="mailto:sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org">sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Sis-dtn] [EXT] Re: Positive reception claim vs. Negative reception claim in LTP Report Segment preparation and processing<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">I think the 'win' would be (comparing a system that generated proactive NACKs vs. a system that generated a CP only at the end of the block):<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">If there are 10,000 LTP segments and the 3rd segment is lost:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<ul style="margin-top:0cm" type="disc">
<li class="MsoPlainText" style="mso-list:l0 level1 lfo3"><span lang="EN-US">The NACK system will nack it “immediately” and elicit a retransmission. Increased latency: about 1 segment.<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoPlainText" style="mso-list:l0 level1 lfo3"><span lang="EN-US">The non-NACK (call it CP-only) system will send the whole block and then a CP, which will elicit a RS and cause the hole to be filled. Adds 1 RTT (and 1 retransmitted segment) to the
block.<o:p></o:p></span></li></ul>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">So the NACK system can save an RTT. If the loss rate is small (say, the probability of filling all holes in one CP/RS/ReTX event is high) then that’s really all it saves, regardless of the number of losses in the
block. If the loss rate is high enough that the expected number of CP/RS/ReTX cycles is higher, the benefit is greater).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">So in general if there are N segments and p(segment loss) is p, the number of retransmission rounds should be about -log(N)/log(p) + 1<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:36.0pt"><span lang="EN-US">N = 10,000<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:36.0pt"><span lang="EN-US">P = 0.1<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:36.0pt"><span lang="EN-US"># rounds: 5<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:36.0pt"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:36.0pt"><span lang="EN-US">N = 10,000<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:36.0pt"><span lang="EN-US">P = 0.01<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:36.0pt"><span lang="EN-US"># rounds: 3<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">So a proactive-NACK implementation could potentially save about 5 RTTs over a CP-only implementation (sort of a blatent assumption that none of the losses are ‘too close’ to the end, but hey).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> v/r,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> --keith<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">On 4/4/22, 1:57 PM, "Carlo Caini" <<a href="mailto:carlo.caini@unibo.it">carlo.caini@unibo.it</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> Dear all,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> on terrestrial applications LTP segment may arrive out of order, thus NACK could result in unecessary retranmissions; maybe this is not a problem as it is the same in TCP (fast retransmit cannot tolerate more
than a disorder of 3 TCP segments).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> In space, maybe we can assume ordered delivery of LTP segment, thus is true that the LTP receiver could immediately send a NACK as soon as a gap is found (i.e. at the first non contigous claim rfeceived), instead
of waiting for the CP, thus saving some time; however, the advantage is limited. If we call radiation time the time necessary to tranmit "on air" a block, we could say that the NACK time gain should be on the evarage of about a half of the radiatrion time.
This saved time should however be compared with the RTT, wich is the minimum time necessary for loss recovery. RTT in space is usually >> radiation time, thus the advantage would be negligible. Maybe it could be useful on LEO, where the RTT is small, but we
should also have large blocks and slow links...<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> Yours,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> Carlo<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> ________________________________________<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> Da: <a href="mailto:Tomaso.deCola@dlr.de">
Tomaso.deCola@dlr.de</a> [Tomaso.deCola@dlr.de]<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> Inviato: lunedì 4 aprile 2022 17:54<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> A: <a href="mailto:kscott@mitre.org">
kscott@mitre.org</a>; <a href="mailto:sburleig.sb@gmail.com">sburleig.sb@gmail.com</a>; Carlo Caini;
<a href="mailto:chkoo@kari.re.kr">chkoo@kari.re.kr</a>; <a href="mailto:dstanton@keltik.co.uk">
dstanton@keltik.co.uk</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> Cc: <a href="mailto:sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org">
sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> Oggetto: RE: [Sis-dtn] [EXT] Re: Positive reception claim vs. Negative reception claim in LTP Report Segment preparation and processing<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> (I cc again the whole SIS-DTN mailinglist that apparently disappeared from my initial message)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> At first glance I don’t see a space network configuration in which the LTP segments belonging to a given LTP block could arrived misordered. Perhaps if LTP is operated over UDP also in space (the current spec does
not prohibit it to the best of my memory) this could happen but I’d say it is an unlikely configuration.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> Tomaso<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> From: Dr. Keith L Scott <<a href="mailto:kscott@mitre.org">kscott@mitre.org</a>><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> Sent: Montag, 4. April 2022 17:43<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> To: <a href="mailto:sburleig.sb@gmail.com">
sburleig.sb@gmail.com</a>; Cola, Tomaso de <<a href="mailto:Tomaso.deCola@dlr.de">Tomaso.deCola@dlr.de</a>>;
<a href="mailto:carlo.caini@unibo.it">carlo.caini@unibo.it</a>; <a href="mailto:chkoo@kari.re.kr">
chkoo@kari.re.kr</a>; <a href="mailto:dstanton@keltik.co.uk">dstanton@keltik.co.uk</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> Subject: Re: [Sis-dtn] [EXT] Re: Positive reception claim vs. Negative reception claim in LTP Report Segment preparation and processing<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> But for CCSDS applications (and LTPv2 is a CCSDS thing not an IETF thing) maybe we make the assumption that segments are not misordered? Or that the misordering is ‘small’ so that some sort of timer / couter at
the receiver could filter out small anomalies? (e.g. hold off sending a NACK for 1,000 segments)?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> --keith<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> From: "<a href="mailto:sburleig.sb@gmail.com%3cmailto:sburleig.sb@gmail.com%3e">sburleig.sb@gmail.com<mailto:sburleig.sb@gmail.com></a>" <<a href="mailto:sburleig.sb@gmail.com%3cmailto:sburleig.sb@gmail.com">sburleig.sb@gmail.com<mailto:sburleig.sb@gmail.com</a>>><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> Date: Monday, April 4, 2022 at 11:39 AM<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> To: Tomaso de Cola <<a href="mailto:Tomaso.deCola@dlr.de%3cmailto:Tomaso.deCola@dlr.de">Tomaso.deCola@dlr.de<mailto:Tomaso.deCola@dlr.de</a>>>, Keith Scott <<a href="mailto:kscott@mitre.org%3cmailto:kscott@mitre.org">kscott@mitre.org<mailto:kscott@mitre.org</a>>>,
"<a href="mailto:carlo.caini@unibo.it%3cmailto:carlo.caini@unibo.it%3e">carlo.caini@unibo.it<mailto:carlo.caini@unibo.it></a>" <<a href="mailto:carlo.caini@unibo.it%3cmailto:carlo.caini@unibo.it">carlo.caini@unibo.it<mailto:carlo.caini@unibo.it</a>>>, Cheol
Koo <<a href="mailto:chkoo@kari.re.kr%3cmailto:chkoo@kari.re.kr">chkoo@kari.re.kr<mailto:chkoo@kari.re.kr</a>>>, Dai Stanton <<a href="mailto:dstanton@keltik.co.uk%3cmailto:dstanton@keltik.co.uk">dstanton@keltik.co.uk<mailto:dstanton@keltik.co.uk</a>>><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> Subject: RE: [Sis-dtn] [EXT] Re: Positive reception claim vs. Negative reception claim in LTP Report Segment preparation and processing<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> Yes, and for good reason: the design of LTP was originally lifted directly from the CFDP Acknowledged Procedures (and thereupon tweaked a bit). I think the argument against proactively reporting negative DS reception
claims was that the missing segments might be already en route but slightly delayed due to transmission over a longer path. In space flight communications this won’t happen because LTP will be running directly over the link; when we test LTP on Earth it is
somewhat more likely, as LTP is running directly over UDP/IP and in theory those packets might travel over multiple different routes.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> Scott<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> From: <a href="mailto:Tomaso.deCola@dlr.de%3cmailto:Tomaso.deCola@dlr.de">
Tomaso.deCola@dlr.de<mailto:Tomaso.deCola@dlr.de</a>> <<a href="mailto:Tomaso.deCola@dlr.de%3cmailto:Tomaso.deCola@dlr.de">Tomaso.deCola@dlr.de<mailto:Tomaso.deCola@dlr.de</a>>><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> Sent: Monday, April 4, 2022 8:31 AM<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> To: <a href="mailto:kscott@mitre.org%3cmailto:kscott@mitre.org">
kscott@mitre.org<mailto:kscott@mitre.org</a>>; <a href="mailto:sburleig.sb@gmail.com%3cmailto:sburleig.sb@gmail.com">
sburleig.sb@gmail.com<mailto:sburleig.sb@gmail.com</a>>; <a href="mailto:carlo.caini@unibo.it%3cmailto:carlo.caini@unibo.it">
carlo.caini@unibo.it<mailto:carlo.caini@unibo.it</a>>; <a href="mailto:chkoo@kari.re.kr%3cmailto:chkoo@kari.re.kr">
chkoo@kari.re.kr<mailto:chkoo@kari.re.kr</a>>; <a href="mailto:dstanton@keltik.co.uk%3cmailto:dstanton@keltik.co.uk">
dstanton@keltik.co.uk<mailto:dstanton@keltik.co.uk</a>><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> Subject: RE: [Sis-dtn] [EXT] Re: Positive reception claim vs. Negative reception claim in LTP Report Segment preparation and processing<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> This looks similar to CFDP-class 2 with retransmission happening in asynchronous mode, isn’t it?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> Regards,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> Tomaso<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> From: SIS-DTN <<a href="mailto:sis-dtn-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org%3cmailto:sis-dtn-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org">sis-dtn-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:sis-dtn-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org</a>>> On Behalf Of Dr. Keith
L Scott via SIS-DTN<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> Sent: Montag, 4. April 2022 17:28<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> To: <a href="mailto:sburleig.sb@gmail.com%3cmailto:sburleig.sb@gmail.com">
sburleig.sb@gmail.com<mailto:sburleig.sb@gmail.com</a>>; 'Carlo Caini' <<a href="mailto:carlo.caini@unibo.it%3cmailto:carlo.caini@unibo.it">carlo.caini@unibo.it<mailto:carlo.caini@unibo.it</a>>>; '"</span><span style="font-family:"맑은 고딕"">구철회</span><span lang="EN-US">"'
<<a href="mailto:chkoo@kari.re.kr%3cmailto:chkoo@kari.re.kr">chkoo@kari.re.kr<mailto:chkoo@kari.re.kr</a>>>; 'Keltik' <<a href="mailto:dstanton@keltik.co.uk%3cmailto:dstanton@keltik.co.uk">dstanton@keltik.co.uk<mailto:dstanton@keltik.co.uk</a>>><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> Cc: <a href="mailto:sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org%3cmailto:sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org">
sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org</a>><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> Subject: Re: [Sis-dtn] [EXT] Re: Positive reception claim vs. Negative reception claim in LTP Report Segment preparation and processing<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> I think maybe a larger opportunity for improvement would be to have a capability for a receiver to proactively NACK segments WITHOUT having to receive a checkpoint first. That would allow autonomously sending
NACKs during the block transmission (thereby filling holes quickly as they are detected) and then relying on the CP/RS/RA exchange to close out the session.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> --keith<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> From: "<a href="mailto:sis-dtn-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org%3cmailto:sis-dtn-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org%3e">sis-dtn-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:sis-dtn-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org></a>" <<a href="mailto:sis-dtn-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org%3cmailto:sis-dtn-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org">sis-dtn-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:sis-dtn-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org</a>>>
on behalf of "<a href="mailto:sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org%3cmailto:sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org%3e">sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org></a>" <<a href="mailto:sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org%3cmailto:sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org">sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org</a>>><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> Reply-To: "<a href="mailto:sburleig.sb@gmail.com%3cmailto:sburleig.sb@gmail.com%3e">sburleig.sb@gmail.com<mailto:sburleig.sb@gmail.com></a>" <<a href="mailto:sburleig.sb@gmail.com%3cmailto:sburleig.sb@gmail.com">sburleig.sb@gmail.com<mailto:sburleig.sb@gmail.com</a>>><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> Date: Monday, April 4, 2022 at 11:21 AM<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> To: 'Carlo Caini' <<a href="mailto:carlo.caini@unibo.it%3cmailto:carlo.caini@unibo.it">carlo.caini@unibo.it<mailto:carlo.caini@unibo.it</a>>>, Cheol Koo <<a href="mailto:chkoo@kari.re.kr%3cmailto:chkoo@kari.re.kr">chkoo@kari.re.kr<mailto:chkoo@kari.re.kr</a>>>,
Dai Stanton <<a href="mailto:dstanton@keltik.co.uk%3cmailto:dstanton@keltik.co.uk">dstanton@keltik.co.uk<mailto:dstanton@keltik.co.uk</a>>><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> Cc: "<a href="mailto:sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org%3cmailto:sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org%3e">sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org></a>" <<a href="mailto:sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org%3cmailto:sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org">sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org</a>>><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> Subject: [EXT] Re: [Sis-dtn] Positive reception claim vs. Negative reception claim in LTP Report Segment preparation and processing<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> Hi, guys. I believe we are actually talking about two distinct things here.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> It is true that positive ACKs are required. Positive acknowledgments turn off the retransmission timers for checkpoints, report segments, and cancellation segments.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> Separately, the individual "claims" within a report segment might be either positive or negative. I agree with Carlo, but think Cheol is correct that negative claims can yield a small overhead advantage. For
any LTP transmission whose scope is from block offset P to Q in which there are N gaps:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> • If one of the gaps begins at P and another of the gaps ends at Q, then the report must contain either N negative claims or N - 1 positive claims.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> • If no gap begins at P and no gap ends at Q, then the report must contain either N negative claims or N + 1 positive claims.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> • If one of the gaps begins at P or one of the gaps ends at Q, but not both, then the report must contain either N negative claims or N positive claims.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> I would expect the second of these cases to occur more frequently than the other two, assuming AOS/LOS events don't occur during the transmission.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> I don't see how either negative or positive claims processing is simpler or easier, though; the representations are equivalent. Ease of implementation would depend strictly on the manner in which segment information
is stored and accessed at the sending and receiving ends of the transmission. I personally found positive claims to be simpler to work with.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> Scott<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> -----Original Message-----<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> From: SIS-DTN <<a href="mailto:sis-dtn-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org%3cmailto:sis-dtn-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org">sis-dtn-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:sis-dtn-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org</a>>> On Behalf Of Carlo Caini
via SIS-DTN<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> Sent: Monday, April 4, 2022 5:47 AM<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> To: "</span><span style="font-family:"맑은 고딕"">구철회</span><span lang="EN-US">" <<a href="mailto:chkoo@kari.re.kr%3cmailto:chkoo@kari.re.kr">chkoo@kari.re.kr<mailto:chkoo@kari.re.kr</a>>>; Keltik <<a href="mailto:dstanton@keltik.co.uk%3cmailto:dstanton@keltik.co.uk">dstanton@keltik.co.uk<mailto:dstanton@keltik.co.uk</a>>><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> Cc: <a href="mailto:sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org%3cmailto:sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org">
sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org</a>><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> Subject: Re: [Sis-dtn] Positive reception claim vs. Negative reception claim in LTP Report Segment preparation and processing<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> Dear Cheol,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> let me consider an LTP block with for example 20 non contigous losses, i.e. 20 gaps. The corresponding RS would include either 20 positive claims (if you have a gap at the start or at the end of the block)
or 21 cl;aims otherwise.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> With NAK claim you would need 20 megative claims. Is that so different?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> You can say that it is easier to resend what has been explicietely said is missing, true; however, on the rx side it is easier to say what has been received than what is missing; all things considered, I cannot
see any signifiocant advantage by excplicietely declaring gaps instead of received chunks.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> Yours,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> Carlo<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> ________________________________________<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> Da: SIS-DTN [sis-dtn-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org] per conto di "</span><span style="font-family:"맑은 고딕"">구철회</span><span lang="EN-US">" via SIS-DTN [sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org]<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> Inviato: lunedì 4 aprile 2022 14:20<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> A: Keltik<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> Cc: <a href="mailto:sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org%3cmailto:sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org">
sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org</a>><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> Oggetto: Re: [Sis-dtn] Positive reception claim vs. Negative reception claim in LTP Report Segment preparation and processing<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> I think current LTP spec has positive ACK and negative ACK both. So if it is reversed the result will be the same.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> Let me bring below example again. To provide claim inforamtion for retransmission of block 1000-2999,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> <<original-positive ACK>><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> lower bound = 0<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> upper bound = 7000<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> negative reception claim count = 2<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> offset = 0 <-- Positive ACK<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> length = 1000 <-- Positive ACK<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> offset = 3000 <-- Positive ACK<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> length = 4000 <-- Positive ACK<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> * Negative ACKs are hidden in separated Positive ACKs.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> <<negative ACK>><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> lower bound = 0 <-- Positive ACK<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> upper bound = 7000 <-- Positive ACK<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> negative reception claim count = 1<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> offset = 1000 <-- Negative ACK<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> length = 2000 <-- Negative ACK<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> I think the latter case can work too! Or am I missing something?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> Cheol<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> --------- </span><span style="font-family:"맑은 고딕"">원본</span>
<span style="font-family:"맑은 고딕"">메일</span><span lang="EN-US"> ---------<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> </span><span style="font-family:"맑은 고딕"">보낸사람</span><span lang="EN-US"> : Keltik <<a href="mailto:dstanton@keltik.co.uk%3cmailto:dstanton@keltik.co.uk">dstanton@keltik.co.uk<mailto:dstanton@keltik.co.uk</a>>><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> </span><span style="font-family:"맑은 고딕"">받는사람</span><span lang="EN-US"> : Vint Cerf <<a href="mailto:vint@google.com%3cmailto:vint@google.com">vint@google.com<mailto:vint@google.com</a>>><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> </span><span style="font-family:"맑은 고딕"">참조</span><span lang="EN-US"> : <<a href="mailto:Felix.Flentge@esa.int%3cmailto:Felix.Flentge@esa.int">Felix.Flentge@esa.int<mailto:Felix.Flentge@esa.int</a>>>, <<a href="mailto:sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org%3cmailto:sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org">sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org</a>>>,
"</span><span style="font-family:"맑은 고딕"">구철회</span><span lang="EN-US">" <<a href="mailto:chkoo@kari.re.kr%3cmailto:chkoo@kari.re.kr">chkoo@kari.re.kr<mailto:chkoo@kari.re.kr</a>>>
</span><span style="font-family:"맑은 고딕"">받은날짜</span><span lang="EN-US"> : 2022-04-04 (</span><span style="font-family:"맑은 고딕"">월</span><span lang="EN-US">) 19:53:46
</span><span style="font-family:"맑은 고딕"">제목</span><span lang="EN-US"> : Re: [Sis-dtn] Positive reception claim vs. Negative reception claim in LTP Report Segment preparation and processing Scott Burleigh and I went through this developing CFDP/LTP three decades
ago. Whilst Negative ACKs can be very efficient for bulk data in the delay/disruption environment, protocol directives such as initiation, metadata exchange, end of data, end of transaction, pause, resume etc require positive ACKs. Otherwise the state machines
will never close.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> Dai<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> Sent from my iPhone<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> On 4 Apr 2022, at 11:09, Vint Cerf via SIS-DTN <<a href="mailto:sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org%3cmailto:sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org">sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org</a>>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> a system based solely on negative acks will not work.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> v<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 6:08 AM Felix Flentge via SIS-DTN <<a href="mailto:sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org%3cmailto:sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org%3cmailto:sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org%3cmailto:sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org">sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org%3cmailto:sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org</a>>>>
wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> Ah, yes, of course you are right.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> We will look into the negative ACK as part of our LTPv2 prototyping activity.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> Regards,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> Felix<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> From: "</span><span style="font-family:"맑은 고딕"">구철회</span><span lang="EN-US">" <<a href="mailto:chkoo@kari.re.kr%3cmailto:chkoo@kari.re.kr%3cmailto:chkoo@kari.re.kr%3cmailto:chkoo@kari.re.kr">chkoo@kari.re.kr<mailto:chkoo@kari.re.kr<mailto:chkoo@kari.re.kr%3cmailto:chkoo@kari.re.kr</a>>>><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> To: <<a href="mailto:Felix.Flentge@esa.int%3cmailto:Felix.Flentge@esa.int%3cmailto:Felix.Flentge@esa.int%3cmailto:Felix.Flentge@esa.int">Felix.Flentge@esa.int<mailto:Felix.Flentge@esa.int<mailto:Felix.Flentge@esa.int%3cmailto:Felix.Flentge@esa.int</a>>>><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> Cc: "<a href="mailto:sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org%3cmailto:sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org%3e%3cmailto:sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org%3cmailto:sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org%3e%3e">sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org><mailto:sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org%3cmailto:sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org%3e></a>"
<<a href="mailto:sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org%3cmailto:sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org%3cmailto:sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org%3cmailto:sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org">sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org%3cmailto:sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org</a>>>><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> Date: 04/04/2022 11:58<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> Subject: RE: Re: [Sis-dtn] Positive reception claim vs. Negative reception claim in LTP Report Segment preparation and processing<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> Sent by: <a href="mailto:chkoo@kari.re.kr%3cmailto:chkoo@kari.re.kr%3cmailto:chkoo@kari.re.kr%3cmailto:chkoo@kari.re.kr">
chkoo@kari.re.kr<mailto:chkoo@kari.re.kr<mailto:chkoo@kari.re.kr%3cmailto:chkoo@kari.re.kr</a>>><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> ________________________________<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> Hi Felix,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> I think current LTP spec quite works well with negative claim also. Consider below reception claim according to the LTP spec but negative claim.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> lower bound = 0<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> upper bound = 7000<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> negative reception claim count = 1<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> offset = 1000<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> length = 2000<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> it means a receiver is requesting block of segements which starts at 1000 and length is 2000, i.e., 1000 ~ 2999, for retransmission.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> A sender can safely remove 2 blocks, i.e., 0 - 999 and 3000 - 7000. I think it is simpler, lower overhead and *importantly* easier to calculate (acutally no painful for localizing the target segment position).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> Cheol<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> --------- </span><span style="font-family:"맑은 고딕"">원본</span>
<span style="font-family:"맑은 고딕"">메일</span><span lang="EN-US"> ---------<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> </span><span style="font-family:"맑은 고딕"">보낸사람</span><span lang="EN-US"> : <<a href="mailto:Felix.Flentge@esa.int%3cmailto:Felix.Flentge@esa.int%3cmailto:Felix.Flentge@esa.int%3cmailto:Felix.Flentge@esa.int">Felix.Flentge@esa.int<mailto:Felix.Flentge@esa.int<mailto:Felix.Flentge@esa.int%3cmailto:Felix.Flentge@esa.int</a>>>><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> </span><span style="font-family:"맑은 고딕"">받는사람</span><span lang="EN-US"> : "</span><span style="font-family:"맑은 고딕"">구철회</span><span lang="EN-US">" <<a href="mailto:chkoo@kari.re.kr%3cmailto:chkoo@kari.re.kr%3cmailto:chkoo@kari.re.kr%3cmailto:chkoo@kari.re.kr">chkoo@kari.re.kr<mailto:chkoo@kari.re.kr<mailto:chkoo@kari.re.kr%3cmailto:chkoo@kari.re.kr</a>>>><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> </span><span style="font-family:"맑은 고딕"">참조</span><span lang="EN-US"> : "<a href="mailto:sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org%3cmailto:sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org%3e%3cmailto:sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org%3cmailto:sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org%3e%3e">sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org><mailto:sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org%3cmailto:sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org%3e></a>"
<<a href="mailto:sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org%3cmailto:sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org%3cmailto:sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org%3cmailto:sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org">sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org%3cmailto:sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org</a>>>><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> </span><span style="font-family:"맑은 고딕"">받은날짜</span><span lang="EN-US"> : 2022-04-04 (</span><span style="font-family:"맑은 고딕"">월</span><span lang="EN-US">) 17:40:24<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> </span><span style="font-family:"맑은 고딕"">제목</span>
<span lang="EN-US">: Re: [Sis-dtn] Positive reception claim vs. Negative reception claim in LTP Report Segment preparation and processing Hi Cheol,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> interesting question. One thing I can think of is that the positive claims would allow you to free memory earlier while for negative claims you need to wait until the end of a session.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> Regards,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> Felix<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> From: "</span><span style="font-family:"맑은 고딕"">구철회</span><span lang="EN-US"> via SIS-DTN" <<a href="mailto:sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org%3cmailto:sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org%3cmailto:sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org%3cmailto:sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org">sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org%3cmailto:sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org</a>>>><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> To: "<a href="mailto:sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org%3cmailto:sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org%3e%3cmailto:sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org%3cmailto:sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org%3e%3e">sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org><mailto:sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org%3cmailto:sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org%3e></a>"
<<a href="mailto:sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org%3cmailto:sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org%3cmailto:sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org%3cmailto:sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org">sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org%3cmailto:sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org</a>>>><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> Date: 04/04/2022 10:15<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> Subject: [Sis-dtn] Positive reception claim vs. Negative reception claim in LTP Report Segment preparation and processing<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> Sent by: "SIS-DTN" <<a href="mailto:sis-dtn-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org%3cmailto:sis-dtn-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org%3cmailto:sis-dtn-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org%3cmailto:sis-dtn-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org">sis-dtn-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:sis-dtn-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:sis-dtn-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org%3cmailto:sis-dtn-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org</a>>>><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> ________________________________<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> Greetings,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> This is Cheol. I am developing an LTP reference implementation. During reading the LTP specification (RFC-5326), the preparation of reception claim in Report Segment makes me confusing about why it is positive
claim not negative claim for segments that were not received successfully (i.e., NAK).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> For reference, CFDP’s NAK PDU has the negative claim structure when it is requested to report missing PDUs. Does anyone know about the background of choosing the positive claim for NAK operation in LTP?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> I think negative claim is simpler and more efficient in terms of overhead for sender and receiver both.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> I like to listen experts’ opinion on LTP operation and honestly hope it to be changed in newly coming LTP spec.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> Cheol<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> _______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> SIS-DTN mailing list<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> <a href="mailto:SIS-DTN@mailman.ccsds.org%3cmailto:SIS-DTN@mailman.ccsds.org%3cmailto:SIS-DTN@mailman.ccsds.org%3cmailto:SIS-DTN@mailman.ccsds.org">
SIS-DTN@mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:SIS-DTN@mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:SIS-DTN@mailman.ccsds.org%3cmailto:SIS-DTN@mailman.ccsds.org</a>>><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> <a href="https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=7094fbf6-2f0f91fe-70918a78-ac1f6bdccbcc-0d3d8ac66f4934b2&q=1&e=42cf6e42-dd3d-47b5-ab7c-ec8488c70286&u=https%3A%2F%2Fmailman.ccsds.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fsis-dtn%253chttps%3A%2Fprotect2.fireeye.com%2Fv1%2Furl%3Fk%3D933edf14-cca5b51c-933bae9a-ac1f6bdccbcc-93bc8ad36316533d%26q%3D1%26e%3D24a03daf-8e73-4317-a689-3216c529ea83%26u%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fmailman.ccsds.org%252Fcgi-bin%252Fmailman%252Flistinfo%252Fsis-dtn%253chttps%3A%2F%2Fmailman.ccsds.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fsis-dtn%253chttps%3A%2Fprotect2.fireeye.com%2Fv1%2Furl%3Fk%3D933edf14-cca5b51c-933bae9a-ac1f6bdccbcc-93bc8ad36316533d%26q%3D1%26e%3D24a03daf-8e73-4317-a689-3216c529ea83%26u%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fmailman.ccsds.org%252Fcgi-bin%252Fmailman%252Flistinfo%252Fsis-dtn">
https://mailman.ccsds.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sis-dtn<https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=933edf14-cca5b51c-933bae9a-ac1f6bdccbcc-93bc8ad36316533d&q=1&e=24a03daf-8e73-4317-a689-3216c529ea83&u=https%3A%2F%2Fmailman.ccsds.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fsis-dtn<https://mailman.ccsds.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sis-dtn%3chttps:/protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=933edf14-cca5b51c-933bae9a-ac1f6bdccbcc-93bc8ad36316533d&q=1&e=24a03daf-8e73-4317-a689-3216c529ea83&u=https%3A%2F%2Fmailman.ccsds.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fsis-dtn</a>>><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> _______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> SIS-DTN mailing list<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> <a href="mailto:SIS-DTN@mailman.ccsds.org%3cmailto:SIS-DTN@mailman.ccsds.org%3cmailto:SIS-DTN@mailman.ccsds.org%3cmailto:SIS-DTN@mailman.ccsds.org">
SIS-DTN@mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:SIS-DTN@mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:SIS-DTN@mailman.ccsds.org%3cmailto:SIS-DTN@mailman.ccsds.org</a>>><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> <a href="https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=ef21fc5e-b0ba9656-ef248dd0-ac1f6bdccbcc-64b6674f7e819d0e&q=1&e=42cf6e42-dd3d-47b5-ab7c-ec8488c70286&u=https%3A%2F%2Fmailman.ccsds.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fsis-dtn%253chttps%3A%2Fprotect2.fireeye.com%2Fv1%2Furl%3Fk%3D60e1ef17-3f7a851f-60e49e99-ac1f6bdccbcc-0dfe5136ab6b73dc%26q%3D1%26e%3Dcce8b1e1-1ec2-4cdd-855b-994c9a3f58c9%26u%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fmailman.ccsds.org%252Fcgi-bin%252Fmailman%252Flistinfo%252Fsis-dtn%253chttps%3A%2F%2Fmailman.ccsds.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fsis-dtn%253chttps%3A%2Fprotect2.fireeye.com%2Fv1%2Furl%3Fk%3D60e1ef17-3f7a851f-60e49e99-ac1f6bdccbcc-0dfe5136ab6b73dc%26q%3D1%26e%3Dcce8b1e1-1ec2-4cdd-855b-994c9a3f58c9%26u%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fmailman.ccsds.org%252Fcgi-bin%252Fmailman%252Flistinfo%252Fsis-dtn">
https://mailman.ccsds.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sis-dtn<https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=60e1ef17-3f7a851f-60e49e99-ac1f6bdccbcc-0dfe5136ab6b73dc&q=1&e=cce8b1e1-1ec2-4cdd-855b-994c9a3f58c9&u=https%3A%2F%2Fmailman.ccsds.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fsis-dtn<https://mailman.ccsds.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sis-dtn%3chttps:/protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=60e1ef17-3f7a851f-60e49e99-ac1f6bdccbcc-0dfe5136ab6b73dc&q=1&e=cce8b1e1-1ec2-4cdd-855b-994c9a3f58c9&u=https%3A%2F%2Fmailman.ccsds.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fsis-dtn</a>>><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> --<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> Please send any postal/overnight deliveries to:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> Vint Cerf<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> 1435 Woodhurst Blvd<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> McLean, VA 22102<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> 703-448-0965<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> until further notice<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> _______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> SIS-DTN mailing list<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> <a href="mailto:SIS-DTN@mailman.ccsds.org%3cmailto:SIS-DTN@mailman.ccsds.org">
SIS-DTN@mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:SIS-DTN@mailman.ccsds.org</a>><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> <a href="https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=12719fd8-4deaf5d0-1274ee56-ac1f6bdccbcc-05a7930b38352e56&q=1&e=42cf6e42-dd3d-47b5-ab7c-ec8488c70286&u=https%3A%2F%2Fmailman.ccsds.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fsis-dtn%253chttps%3A%2Fprotect2.fireeye.com%2Fv1%2Furl%3Fk%3D9ac1f10e-c55a9b06-9ac48080-ac1f6bdccbcc-60db088d278d85f7%26q%3D1%26e%3Dcce8b1e1-1ec2-4cdd-855b-994c9a3f58c9%26u%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fmailman.ccsds.org%252Fcgi-bin%252Fmailman%252Flistinfo%252Fsis-dtn%253chttps%3A%2F%2Fmailman.ccsds.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fsis-dtn%253chttps%3A%2Fprotect2.fireeye.com%2Fv1%2Furl%3Fk%3D9ac1f10e-c55a9b06-9ac48080-ac1f6bdccbcc-60db088d278d85f7%26q%3D1%26e%3Dcce8b1e1-1ec2-4cdd-855b-994c9a3f58c9%26u%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fmailman.ccsds.org%252Fcgi-bin%252Fmailman%252Flistinfo%252Fsis-dtn">
https://mailman.ccsds.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sis-dtn<https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=9ac1f10e-c55a9b06-9ac48080-ac1f6bdccbcc-60db088d278d85f7&q=1&e=cce8b1e1-1ec2-4cdd-855b-994c9a3f58c9&u=https%3A%2F%2Fmailman.ccsds.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fsis-dtn<https://mailman.ccsds.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sis-dtn%3chttps:/protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=9ac1f10e-c55a9b06-9ac48080-ac1f6bdccbcc-60db088d278d85f7&q=1&e=cce8b1e1-1ec2-4cdd-855b-994c9a3f58c9&u=https%3A%2F%2Fmailman.ccsds.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fsis-dtn</a>>><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> _______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> SIS-DTN mailing list<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> <a href="mailto:SIS-DTN@mailman.ccsds.org%3cmailto:SIS-DTN@mailman.ccsds.org">
SIS-DTN@mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:SIS-DTN@mailman.ccsds.org</a>><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> <a href="https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=cad01285-954b788d-cad5630b-ac1f6bdccbcc-4b400b0669265909&q=1&e=42cf6e42-dd3d-47b5-ab7c-ec8488c70286&u=https%3A%2F%2Fmailman.ccsds.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fsis-dtn">
https://mailman.ccsds.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sis-dtn</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>