[Sis-dtn] Updates on LTPv2 Corrigendum and BPv7 RID database

[구철회]

Hi, Scott.

Thanks for the organized lists on LTP-corrigendum.

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".

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).

Cheol


>
>
>
> *Von:* SIS-DTN <sis-dtn-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org> *Im Auftrag von
> *Keith Scott via SIS-DTN
> *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 20. Juni 2023 18:35
> *An:* sis-dtn at mailman.ccsds.org
> *Betreff:* [Sis-dtn] Updates on LTPv2 Corrigendum and BPv7 RID
> database
>
>
>
> LTP Corrigendum (from the telecon last Thursday):
>
>    - Discussed the latest JPL collection of issues here (
>    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
>    <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>
>    )
>    - We definitely want a CORRIGENDUM (non-normative, no changes to the
>    protocol) NOT a set of Pink sheets or a Pink Book (which would/could be
>    normative and would require agency review).  So, all proposed text should
>    be in the form of non-normative suggestions to implementers.
>    - We discussed putting all of the proposed changes into a single
>    location or spreading them throughout the document.  The consensus was that
>    it would be better for implementers to put the suggestions proximate to the
>    places in the document that discuss the protocol mechanisms (i.e. mixed
>    throughout).  Should ask Tom what he thinks of this...
>    - Blue text in the document reflects the WG consensus on the telecon;
>    we agreed that folks would propose final "copy-ready" text in green
>    together with the location where that text should go.
>
>
>
> Added the CNES RIDs to the spreadsheet.
>
>
>
>     --keith
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <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>

------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/sis-dtn/attachments/20230622/22816c11/attachment.htm>