<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=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]--><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;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
tt
{mso-style-priority:99;
font-family:"Courier New";}
span.EmailStyle22
{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, I think this raises an extremely important point.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Suppose entity A, located somewhere in the Solar System Internet, wants to send a message to entity B, likewise located somewhere in the Solar System Internet. I believe we do not want to require that A always know in advance the location of B (or, worse, be required to query for the location of B) in order to send the message.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>If this is the case, then A does not know whether B is 43 light minutes away or in the next room. All it knows is which topologically adjacent node it will initially forward the message to (which might actually be B or might be the first of N routers and/or relay nodes on the path to B).<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>So A shouldn’t be required to decide whether or not B is most efficiently reachable by TCP. Entity A should leave that determination to the network.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>If this is the case, then A should simply send the message via Bundle Protocol and let BP determine how best to forward the message to B – maybe via LTP over a 43-minute OWLT, maybe via TCP to the next room.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Finally, if all this makes sense, then BP/TCP might very well be operating at the nodes of a lunar habitat, a terrestrial ground station, a Mars-orbiting space station, etc.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Scott<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b>From:</b> SIS-DTN <sis-dtn-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org> <b>On Behalf Of </b>Tomaso de Cola via SIS-DTN<br><b>Sent:</b> Friday, May 13, 2022 4:20 AM<br><b>To:</b> Felix.Flentge@esa.int; sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Sis-dtn] Clean version of the CCSDS BPv7 Red Book draft<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB>Hi Felix,<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>I think you raised a very valid point, i.e. to possibly restrict to scenarios that are of interest for planned or future space missions. In addition to UDPCL, I’m also wondering whether we are going to have missions planning to use BP/TCP in space. Any thoughts on it?<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><p class=MsoNormal><b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:Felix.Flentge@esa.int">Felix.Flentge@esa.int</a> <<a href="mailto:Felix.Flentge@esa.int">Felix.Flentge@esa.int</a>> <br><b>Sent:</b> Freitag, 13. Mai 2022 12:10<br><b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org">sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org</a><br><b>Cc:</b> <a href="mailto:beau.t.blanding@nasa.gov">beau.t.blanding@nasa.gov</a>; Cola, Tomaso de <<a href="mailto:Tomaso.deCola@dlr.de">Tomaso.deCola@dlr.de</a>><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Sis-dtn] Clean version of the CCSDS BPv7 Red Book draft<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>Hi,</span><span lang=EN-GB> <br><br></span><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>the situations regarding UDPCL is unfortunately a bit messy. We have:</span><span lang=EN-GB> <br><br></span><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>1) Annex B4 in CCSDS 734.2-B-1</span><span lang=EN-GB> <br></span><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>2) there is RfC 7122 in I<b>R</b>TF</span><span lang=EN-GB> <br></span><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>3) expired UDPCL draft in IETF </span><span lang=EN-GB><a href="https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sipos-dtn-udpcl/"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>draft-sipos-dtn-udpcl-01 - Delay-Tolerant Networking UDP Convergence Layer Protocol (ietf.org)</span></a></span><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:12.0pt'> </span><span lang=EN-GB><br><br></span><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>In terms of BP encoding, they are basically the same (just put a bundle in UDP datagram payload, called unframed transfer in the IETF draft). 3) goes beyond that as it also includes DTLS / Keep-alive / CL-Layer fragmentation).</span><span lang=EN-GB> <br><br></span><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>I think we really need to understand the 'space use cases' to make a good decision what to include (or wait for UDPCL in IETF). In general, it does not appear to me to useful in (most) space scenarios (besides testing) as at least the simple approach has some limitation (bundle sizes should be small to avoid IP fragmentation, need for explicit congestion control). I think what we should try to avoid is that we get protocol stacks like BP / UDPCL / UDP / IPE / EPP when BP / EPP would be enough.</span><span lang=EN-GB> <br><br></span><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>Regards,</span><span lang=EN-GB> <br></span><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>Felix</span><span lang=EN-GB> <br><br><br><br></span><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#5F5F5F'>From: </span><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>"Tomaso de Cola via SIS-DTN" <<a href="mailto:sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org">sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org</a>></span><span lang=EN-GB> <br></span><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#5F5F5F'>To: </span><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'><<a href="mailto:beau.t.blanding@nasa.gov">beau.t.blanding@nasa.gov</a>></span><span lang=EN-GB> <br></span><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#5F5F5F'>Cc: </span><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'><a href="mailto:sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org">sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org</a></span><span lang=EN-GB> <br></span><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#5F5F5F'>Date: </span><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>13/05/2022 09:59</span><span lang=EN-GB> <br></span><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#5F5F5F'>Subject: </span><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>Re: [Sis-dtn] Clean version of the CCSDS BPv7 Red Book draft</span><span lang=EN-GB> <br></span><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#5F5F5F'>Sent by: </span><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>"SIS-DTN" <<a href="mailto:sis-dtn-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org">sis-dtn-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org</a>></span><span lang=EN-GB> <o:p></o:p></span></p><div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><span lang=EN-GB><hr size=3 width="100%" noshade style='color:#A0A0A0' align=center></span></div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p style='margin:0in'><span lang=EN-GB>Dear Beau,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p style='margin:0in'><span lang=EN-GB> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p style='margin:0in'><span lang=EN-GB>Thank you for sharing the clean version. Just a few quick comments on the CLA annex:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p style='margin:0in'><span lang=EN-GB> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB><br></span><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>1. </span><span lang=EN-GB>For UDPCLA, shall we point to RFC 7122? <br></span><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>2. </span><span lang=EN-GB>As mentioned by Felix, we should have dedicated text for EPP and SPP. Let’s take also into account (probably with a note) that with the new version of SPP there exists no dedicated APID for BP or LTP. On the contrary, EPP has dedicated protocol identifiers (available also in SANA) for pointing to BP or LTP. <br></span><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>3. </span><span lang=EN-GB>I’m not quite sure that we can add a USLPCLA since so far (i.e. for what available in the current USLP spec), the UPID defined in USLP TFZ points only to EPP or SPP. Then BP/LTP has to be encapsulated over either of these two, but cannot go directly into USLP. If we see relevant to have direct encapsulation, I think we should pass this requirement to Greg and the SLP folks to see if they can accommodate this into a new version of USLP. After that we can have a dedicated USLPCLA, otherwise I’m afraid the BPv7 would be inconsistent with the current USLP spec in this respect. <br></span><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>4. </span><span lang=EN-GB>It is stated that the largest bundle over LTP cannot be more than 4GB: where does this requirement come from? <o:p></o:p></span></p><p style='margin:0in'><span lang=EN-GB> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p style='margin:0in'><span lang=EN-GB>Thank you for the clarification,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p style='margin:0in'><span lang=EN-GB> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p style='margin:0in'><span lang=EN-GB>Tomaso<o:p></o:p></span></p><p style='margin:0in'><span lang=EN-GB> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p style='margin:0in'><b><span lang=EN-GB>From:</span></b><span lang=EN-GB> SIS-DTN <<a href="mailto:sis-dtn-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org">sis-dtn-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org</a>> <b>On Behalf Of </b>Blanding, Beau T. (MSFC-HP27)[HOSC SERVICES CONTRACT] via SIS-DTN<b><br>Sent:</b> Donnerstag, 12. Mai 2022 21:43<b><br>To:</b> <a href="mailto:sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org">sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org</a><b><br>Subject:</b> [Sis-dtn] Clean version of the CCSDS BPv7 Red Book draft<o:p></o:p></span></p><p style='margin:0in'><span lang=EN-GB> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p style='margin:0in'><span lang=EN-GB>Hello all,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p style='margin:0in'><span lang=EN-GB> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p style='margin:0in'><span lang=EN-GB>Attached is the clean version of the BPv7 Red Book, where most of the changes present have been accepted. I unfortunately do not have access to the google box right now, so there is one place that has not been completely cleaned up according to the edits that were made on the google box version (beginning of section 2.1). I was able to take the proper notes on everything else and apply it to the clean version.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p style='margin:0in'><span lang=EN-GB> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p style='margin:0in'><span lang=EN-GB>Thank you,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p style='margin:0in'><span lang=EN-GB> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p style='margin:0in'><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:16.0pt'>Beau Blanding</span><span lang=EN-GB><o:p></o:p></span></p><p style='margin:0in'><span lang=EN-GB>HOSC Systems Engineer<o:p></o:p></span></p><p style='margin:0in'><span lang=EN-GB>MSFC 4663, Office C121<o:p></o:p></span></p><p style='margin:0in'><span lang=EN-GB><a href="mailto:beau.t.blanding@nasa.gov"><span style='color:#0082BF'>beau.t.blanding@nasa.gov</span></a><o:p></o:p></span></p><p style='margin:0in'><span lang=EN-GB> </span><tt><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt'>_______________________________________________</span></tt><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New"'><br><tt>SIS-DTN mailing list</tt><br><tt><a href="mailto:SIS-DTN@mailman.ccsds.org">SIS-DTN@mailman.ccsds.org</a></tt><br></span><span lang=EN-GB><a href="https://mailman.ccsds.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sis-dtn"><tt><span style='font-size:10.0pt'>https://mailman.ccsds.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sis-dtn</span></tt></a><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></body></html>