[Sis-dtn] Positive reception claim vs. Negative reception claim in LTP Report Segment preparation and processing

["구철회"]

Hi Felix,


I think current LTP spec quite works well with negative claim also. Consider below reception claim according to the LTP spec but negative claim.


lower bound = 0
upper bound = 7000
negative reception claim count = 1
offset = 1000
length = 2000


it means a receiver is requesting block of segements which starts at 1000 and length is 2000, i.e., 1000 ~ 2999, for retransmission.
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).


Cheol

--------- 원본 메일 ---------

보낸사람 : <Felix.Flentge at esa.int>
받는사람 : "구철회" <chkoo at kari.re.kr>
참조 : "sis-dtn at mailman.ccsds.org" <sis-dtn at mailman.ccsds.org>
받은날짜 : 2022-04-04 (월) 17:40:24
제목 : Re: [Sis-dtn] Positive reception claim vs. Negative reception claim in LTP Report Segment preparation and processing

Hi Cheol, 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. Regards, Felix From:        "구철회 via SIS-DTN" <sis-dtn at mailman.ccsds.org> To:        "sis-dtn at mailman.ccsds.org" <sis-dtn at mailman.ccsds.org> Date:        04/04/2022 10:15 Subject:        [Sis-dtn] Positive reception claim vs. Negative reception claim in LTP Report Segment preparation and processing Sent by:        "SIS-DTN" <sis-dtn-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org> Greetings,   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).   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? I think negative claim is simpler and more efficient in terms of overhead for sender and receiver both. I like to listen experts’ opinion on LTP operation and honestly hope it to be changed in newly coming LTP spec.   Cheol  _______________________________________________
 SIS-DTN mailing list
 SIS-DTN at mailman.ccsds.org
 https://mailman.ccsds.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sis-dtn
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/sis-dtn/attachments/20220404/14cb9b29/attachment.htm>