[Sis-dtn] LTP Corrigendum

[Keith Scott]

All,

I plugged the agreed-upon text for the LTP corrigendum into an edited
version of the LTPv1 blue book; results on CWE here
<https://cwe.ccsds.org/sis/_layouts/15/WopiFrame.aspx?sourcedoc={9FC85669-5C0A-4CB9-BFFB-0157F1740334}&file=734x1b1_final_w_draft_corrigendum_kls.doc&action=default>
.

I added the omnibus "why do another LTP implementation" in section 2.
Because of the way the document is structured, I don't think it's really
possible to scatter the other recommendations close to their respective
specification text, so I put them all into a 'Discussion' section at the
end of section 3.

This addresses (I think) Cheol's asynchronous (friendly) reports.

ONE ITEM THAT MAY NEED ATTENTION:
We had agreed on text for the green-part data reception section stating:
"If implementers wish to  implement green-part LTP in conjunction with link
suspension, they should reuse the session identifiers which were utilized
prior to suspension."

Isn't this a requirement on the SENDER?  On reception, the green-part
session identifier is passed from the receiving LTP engine to the client
and is extracted from the LTP header, right?  The agreed-upon text of the
corrigendum sounds (to me) dangerously close to specification text, and I
THINK it's a requirement on the sender from 5326, no?  I suggest we cut the
sentence above.  If we want to add it as a recommendation for SENDERS, I
suggest putting it in its own subsection.  If I'm just clueless, somebody
make a suggestion.



    --keith

https://cwe.ccsds.org/sis/_layouts/15/WopiFrame.aspx?sourcedoc={9FC85669-5C0A-4CB9-BFFB-0157F1740334}&file=734x1b1_final_w_draft_corrigendum_kls.doc&action=default
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/sis-dtn/attachments/20230713/f9e82561/attachment.htm>