<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)"><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;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
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="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72"><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>Jeremy, Felix,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>I think there is a lot of improvement in both encoding and state machine for this new protocol draft, while keeping with the capabilities and rough service interface of earlier LTP. I’m attaching a document with inline comments for specific sections and paragraphs. Two areas that I think are underspecified currently are session invariants/state and the underlying transport requirements/assumptions.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>An explanation of session invariants would be redundant, but I think helpful to an implementer to understand which parameters are associated with an individual session, are unchanging between all segments within a session, and for a receiver are memorized when first received. As a follow-on it would be good to indicate how a receiver should respond if a segment comes in that violates that invariant; does that session get ignored from that point on, canceled with in-band messaging, or something more severe like stop processing all segments from that sender (I don’t recommend this but some specific guidance would bound an engine behavior). <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>Also in earlier LTP implementations there is the possibility of pausing a session (by simply pausing all timers associated with the session and stopping any transmit of new/queued segments for that session); is this behavior useful enough to include in the official LTP engine service interface? It seems straightforward enough to be an optional indication to the engine to pause/un-pause a session.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>The parts missing from specification of the underlying transport interface are comments in the document, but generally it is good to be explicit about what is required and what is assumed about the transport. This helps in two ways: it makes it more obvious to an implementer about what must be added as glue between what the upper protocol requires and the lower transport provides, and it also makes it obvious when a specific transport is just inappropriate and to not try to use it. For example, earlier LTP had a few assumptions about in-order segment delivery (some workarounds are possible within the protocol requirements) which would make it unsuitable or vulnerable DoS if used over IP. These kinds of things are not necessarily bad, just need to be known to the implementer rather than assumed and unstated.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal>E<span style='color:#1F497D'>arlier issues reported to HDTN project related to out-of-order reception are linked below. Issue #22 and #24 are both optimizations to allow an engine to delay sending report or data retransmit segments long enough to receive any out-of-order segments that would affect the report claims or avoid the retransmit entirely. Issue #23 is about when to send an "asynchronous reception report" which is defined by LTP but never specified when an engine would actually send one. Issue #19 is another unspecified behavior that (could, and in HDTN case did) allow a memory leak and provide a method of denial-of-service attack.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><a href="https://github.com/nasa/HDTN/issues/24">https://github.com/nasa/HDTN/issues/24</a><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><a href="https://github.com/nasa/HDTN/issues/23">https://github.com/nasa/HDTN/issues/23</a><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><a href="https://github.com/nasa/HDTN/issues/22">https://github.com/nasa/HDTN/issues/22</a><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><a href="https://github.com/nasa/HDTN/issues/19">https://github.com/nasa/HDTN/issues/19</a><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>On the topic of the overlayer service interface for unreliable data, I am strongly in favor of the current interface where the LTP engine provides the entire block data with a reception map. It is much more useful from an overlayer/BPA perspective to have both TX and RX interfaces operate at the scale of entire blocks (i.e. “block goes in to TX, block comes out of RX”). Since any overlayer will need to reassemble segments and include a reception timeout anyway, it’s better for that logic to be as close to the segment processing as possible (in the LTP engine) and not need to be re-implemented with every use of the engine. This is especially true as unreliable timeout presents a possible DoS attack vector.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>Finally, regardless of whatever name applies to this new protocol it would be helpful to explicitly state that it is on-the-wire unique from earlier LTP and can be used over the same transport as LTP and segments can be handled unambiguously from LTP segments. This will allow re-use of existing allocation such as the <a href="https://www.iana.org/assignments/service-names-port-numbers/service-names-port-numbers.xhtml?search=1113">LTP UDP Port</a> and similar service identifiers.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>Thanks for all of the effort in designing and documenting this.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>Brian S.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></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>Jeremy Mayer via SIS-DTN<br><b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, May 9, 2023 5:48 PM<br><b>To:</b> sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org<br><b>Cc:</b> ccorsten@gmv.com<br><b>Subject:</b> [EXT] [Sis-dtn] LTPv2 Draft Blue Book for Review<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div id=APLWarningText><table class=MsoNormalTable border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0 align=left><tr><td width="100%" style='width:100.0%;background:#E0E0E0;padding:0in 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-element:frame;mso-element-frame-hspace:1.8pt;mso-element-wrap:around;mso-element-anchor-vertical:paragraph;mso-element-anchor-horizontal:column;mso-height-rule:exactly'><b><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:red'>APL external email warning: </span></b><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black'>Verify sender <a href="mailto:sis-dtn-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org">sis-dtn-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org</a> before clicking links or attachments</span><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></td></tr></table><p> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB>Hi everyone,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB>In order to provide a baseline for tomorrows discussion of the proposed LTPv2 protocol, I’ve attached the draft blue book for the standard. After showcasing the proposed approach and rational, we’re intending to go through the document, focusing on the underlying protocol. <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>Thanks,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB>Jeremy & Felix<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></body></html>