[Sis-dtn] New version of LTP Corrigendum

[Sanchez Net, Marc (US 332H)]

Apologies for the two-part email.

Leigh proposes that we call "the new protocol" the "Simplified Link Reliability Protocol" (SLRP), which could be simply pronounced "SLRP" or even better "slurp". Just sharing in case people like it.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marc Sanchez Net (332H)
Telecommunications Engineer
Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Cell: (617) 953-7977<mailto:(617)%20953-7977> | Email: marc.sanchez.net at jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:marc.sanchez.net at jpl.nasa.gov>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

________________________________
From: Sanchez Net, Marc (US 332H)
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2023 7:05 PM
To: Dr. Keith L Scott via SIS-DTN <sis-dtn at mailman.ccsds.org>
Cc: Torgerson, J. Leigh (US 332C) <jordan.l.torgerson at jpl.nasa.gov>; Gao, Jay L (US 332C) <jay.l.gao at jpl.nasa.gov>
Subject: New version of LTP Corrigendum

All,

Please find attached a new version of the LTP corrigendum with some modifications including:

  *   Comparison between LTP and "the new protocol" has been reduced. This in part motivated by the fact that we have demonstrated ~4 Gbps rates with ION's LTP implementation, which is more than sufficient for deep space links (e.g., even in future trunk lines between Earth and Mars, data rates of 4 Gbps are never exceeded).
  *   I have added two possible additions to the technical corrigendum based on work done by Brian and people at GRC. They are all optional (MAY) statements and I believe can be implemented without additional managed parameters (and timers).
  *   Brian has commented on two additional issues (see here<https://github.com/nasa/HDTN/issues/22> and here<https://github.com/nasa/HDTN/issues/24>), but those seem to require additional timers that would need to be managed, so I am unconvinced it is worth the extra complexity. Brian, please correct me if I am wrong.

Finally, I think the note at the beginning of Section 3.9 of the current CCSDS LTP spec should be modified to explicitly state that LTP security should not be used and, instead, implementers should rely on security mechanisms provided by other parts of the CCSDS protocol stack, be it SDLS or BPSec. Thoughts on this point?

[https://opengraph.githubassets.com/20650d8341084e048ce0b347834a0c8d441c40acab81b1ef4c075e8770078d33/nasa/HDTN/issues/24]<https://github.com/nasa/HDTN/issues/24>
Defer data retransmission with out-of-order report segments · Issue #24 · nasa/HDTN<https://github.com/nasa/HDTN/issues/24>
When the network is causing out-of-order segment reception it is possible that one or more synchronous reception reports are received either out-of-order or within a short time window, possibly fol...
github.com
[https://opengraph.githubassets.com/557790465f865a493213b66289d08ffd17c4b98d48ae91ec6ef62866fa1ceac9/nasa/HDTN/issues/22]<https://github.com/nasa/HDTN/issues/22>
Defer synchronous reception report with out-of-order data segments · Issue #22 · nasa/HDTN<https://github.com/nasa/HDTN/issues/22>
When red part data is segmented and delivered to the receiving engine out-of-order, the checkpoint(s) and EORP can be received before the earlier-in-block data segments. If a synchronous report is ...
github.com

Thanks,

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Marc Sanchez Net (332H)

Telecommunications Engineer

Jet Propulsion Laboratory

Cell: (617) 953-7977<mailto:(617)%20953-7977> | Email: marc.sanchez.net at jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:marc.sanchez.net at jpl.nasa.gov>

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/sis-dtn/attachments/20230517/a21102e7/attachment-0001.htm>