<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=ks_c_5601-1987">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:±¼¸²;
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:"\@±¼¸²";
panose-1:2 11 6 0 0 1 1 1 1 1;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:±¼¸²;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0cm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:±¼¸²;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:3.0cm 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
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="KO" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt">Hi, Scott.<br>
<br>
Thanks for the organized lists on LTP-corrigendum.<br>
<br>
I would like to give a comment with regard to Sec 4. " Kiyo had a description of a session closure issue with the state machine".<br>
<br>
That scenario is definitely possible. As we discussed about "friendly report" with you and Scott before, I think this situation can be solved by the "friendly report" from a receiver. Once a sender receives the "friendly report", which claims fully accept of
current session, from a receiver, the sender can close this session and delete all regarding information structure when these are still reside on memory. Even if these session information does not exist anymore, a sender autonomously can generate the requested
report acknowledgement for a fully claimed report, "friendly report", from a receiver any time without referencing session information (possibly deleted by the previous report).<br>
<br>
Cheol<br>
<br>
<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> *Von:* SIS-DTN <sis-dtn-bounces@mailman.ccsds.org> *Im Auftrag von<br>
> *Keith Scott via SIS-DTN<br>
> *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 20. Juni 2023 18:35<br>
> *An:* sis-dtn@mailman.ccsds.org<br>
> *Betreff:* [Sis-dtn] Updates on LTPv2 Corrigendum and BPv7 RID<br>
> database<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> LTP Corrigendum (from the telecon last Thursday):<br>
><br>
> - Discussed the latest JPL collection of issues here (<br>
> https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=c56a7851-9af11259-c56f09df-ac1f6bdccbcc-b022028260a627c9&q=1&e=abac0b52-e2c3-4510-8272-0e38062adf37&u=https%3A%2F%2Fcwe.ccsds.org%2Fsis%2F_layouts%2F15%2FWopiFrame.aspx%3Fsourcedoc%3D%7BA52D5D6D-7A66-4CCD-AB61-B215AA2B8C36%7D%26file%3DDraft%2520LTP%2520corrigendum%2520-%2520JPL%2520edits%2520%281%29.docx%26action%3Ddefault<br>
> <https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=46956865-190e026d-469019eb-ac1f6bdccbcc-9a923159227b7b51&q=1&e=abac0b52-e2c3-4510-8272-0e38062adf37&u=https%3A%2F%2Fcwe.ccsds.org%2Fsis%2F_layouts%2F15%2FWopiFrame.aspx%3Fsourcedoc%3D%257bA52D5D6D-7A66-4CCD-AB61-B215AA2B8C36%257d%26file%3DDraft%2520LTP%2520corrigendum%2520-%2520JPL%2520edits%2520%281%29.docx%26action%3Ddefault><br>
> )<br>
> - We definitely want a CORRIGENDUM (non-normative, no changes to the<br>
> protocol) NOT a set of Pink sheets or a Pink Book (which would/could be<br>
> normative and would require agency review). So, all proposed text should<br>
> be in the form of non-normative suggestions to implementers.<br>
> - We discussed putting all of the proposed changes into a single<br>
> location or spreading them throughout the document. The consensus was that<br>
> it would be better for implementers to put the suggestions proximate to the<br>
> places in the document that discuss the protocol mechanisms (i.e. mixed<br>
> throughout). Should ask Tom what he thinks of this...<br>
> - Blue text in the document reflects the WG consensus on the telecon;<br>
> we agreed that folks would propose final "copy-ready" text in green<br>
> together with the location where that text should go.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Added the CNES RIDs to the spreadsheet.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> --keith<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <<a href="https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=33b987ae-6c22eda6-33bcf620-ac1f6bdccbcc-083f34d7ec719855&q=1&e=abac0b52-e2c3-4510-8272-0e38062adf37&u=http%3A%2F%2Fmailman.ccsds.org%2Fpipermail%2Fsis-dtn%2Fattachments%2F20230621%2F2cd0db15%2Fattachment.htm">https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=33b987ae-6c22eda6-33bcf620-ac1f6bdccbcc-083f34d7ec719855&q=1&e=abac0b52-e2c3-4510-8272-0e38062adf37&u=http%3A%2F%2Fmailman.ccsds.org%2Fpipermail%2Fsis-dtn%2Fattachments%2F20230621%2F2cd0db15%2Fattachment.htm</a>><br>
<br>
------------------------------</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>