$)C<span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">Hi Cheol,</span>
<br>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">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.</span>
<br>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">Regards,</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">Felix</span>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><span style=" font-size:9pt;color:#5f5f5f;font-family:sans-serif">From:
       </span><span style=" font-size:9pt;font-family:sans-serif">"18C6H8
via SIS-DTN" <sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org></span>
<br><span style=" font-size:9pt;color:#5f5f5f;font-family:sans-serif">To:
       </span><span style=" font-size:9pt;font-family:sans-serif">"sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org"
<sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org></span>
<br><span style=" font-size:9pt;color:#5f5f5f;font-family:sans-serif">Date:
       </span><span style=" font-size:9pt;font-family:sans-serif">04/04/2022
10:15</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:9pt;color:#5f5f5f;font-family:sans-serif">Subject:
       </span><span style=" font-size:9pt;font-family:sans-serif">[Sis-dtn]
Positive reception claim vs. Negative reception claim in LTP Report Segment
preparation and processing</span>
<br><span style=" font-size:9pt;color:#5f5f5f;font-family:sans-serif">Sent
by:        </span><span style=" font-size:9pt;font-family:sans-serif">"SIS-DTN"
<sis-dtn-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org></span>
<br>
<hr noshade>
<br>
<br>
<div><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">Greetings,</span>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">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).</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">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?</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">I
think negative claim is simpler and more efficient in terms of overhead
for sender and receiver both.</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">I
like to listen experts!/ opinion on LTP operation and honestly hope it
to be changed in newly coming LTP spec.</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-Bottom:0px"><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif">Cheol</span></p>
<br><span style=" font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif"> </span><tt><span style=" font-size:10pt">_______________________________________________<br>
SIS-DTN mailing list<br>
SIS-DTN@mailman.ccsds.org<br>
</span></tt><a href="https://mailman.ccsds.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sis-dtn"><tt><span style=" font-size:10pt">https://mailman.ccsds.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sis-dtn</span></tt></a><tt><span style=" font-size:10pt"><br>
</span></tt>
<br>
<br></div>