[Sis-dtn] proposed BPv7 Blue Book revision

[Felix Flentge]

Dear All,

Regarding the text updates, we also need to change PICS and MIB. I would propose:


  *   Orange Book, Page A-7. Item 40 + 41:

[cid:image001.png at 01DC104B.B9753490]



I would propose just delete those and go from 39 to 42 in the table. A footnote could be added to 42 saying
‘Items 40 and 41 have been deleted as those covered optional bundle fragmentation which is not allowed for CCSDS-compliant implementations.’
If we cannot add a footnote, we could put a note before the table.



  *   Orange Book, C-2, Table C-1:
[cid:image002.png at 01DC104B.DBDD0940]
This part can simply be deleted.


  *   I would propose to add a section 3.8 (text TBD but I would prefer something more explicit then just saying fragments are malformed):

3.8 Bundle Fragmentation

3.8.1  CCSDS-compliant implementations shall never fragment bundles according to RfC 9171, Section 5.8.



Note: Problems regarding bundle fragmentation and ADU re-assembly as specified by RfC 9171 have been identified. In particular, BPSEC cannot be applied to fragments and fragmentation of bundles with a BPSEC protected primary header can prevent receiving nodes to confirm primary header authenticity even if the ADU is re-assembled.

3.8.2 CCSDS-compliant implementations are not required to implement Application Data Unit Reassembly according to RfC 9171, Section 5.9.



3.8.3 CCSDS-compliant implementations may discard fragmentary bundles at reception.



  *   Editorial: Orange Book, page E-1, Section E1: The example is using the ‘isFragment’ control flag. This is not a problem but it might be nicer to use something else as an example.

For the formal part:
@Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de<mailto:Tomaso.deCola at dlr.de>: Could we try to get a waiver for a second agency review by arguing:

  1.  The issues regarding fragmentation have only be discovered after the first agency review but are acknowledged by the DTN WG and also the IETF
  2.  Fragmentation has not been subject to interoperability testing because of those issues
  3.  We are simply removing a feature (not adding something new or changing a feature)?

Regards,
Felix

From: SIS-DTN <sis-dtn-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org> On Behalf Of Tomaso de Cola via SIS-DTN
Sent: 18 August 2025 11:14
To: sburleig.sb at gmail.com
Cc: sis-dtn at mailman.ccsds.org
Subject: Re: [Sis-dtn] proposed BPv7 Blue Book revision

Hi all,

Just for the sake of the clarification, if we are going to make any changes to the spec not linked to any of the RIDs raised in the agency review happened more than one year ago, we must then go to a new agency review. In this process IESG is not involved.

Regards,

Tomaso
Sent from my iPhone


On 17. Aug 2025, at 12:27, sburleig.sb--- via SIS-DTN <sis-dtn at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:sis-dtn at mailman.ccsds.org>> wrote:

Hi.  As we discussed on Thursday, the following text is proposed as an edit in response to the current IESG (?) review of the BPv7 Blue Book draft:

In view of the identified problems with BP fragmentation and reassembly, any bundle primary block that contains a fragment offset value shall be considered a malformed block.

(According to Step 3 of 5.6, this will result in deletion of the bundle.)  Comments?

Scott
_______________________________________________
SIS-DTN mailing list
SIS-DTN at mailman.ccsds.org<mailto:SIS-DTN at mailman.ccsds.org>
https://mailman.ccsds.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sis-dtn
This message is intended only for the recipient(s) named above. It may contain proprietary information and/or protected content. Any unauthorised disclosure, use, retention or dissemination is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately. ESA applies appropriate organisational measures to protect personal data, in case of data privacy queries, please contact the ESA Data Protection Officer (dpo at esa.int).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/sis-dtn/attachments/20250818/eba0e633/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 47398 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/sis-dtn/attachments/20250818/eba0e633/attachment-0002.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 32786 bytes
Desc: image002.png
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/sis-dtn/attachments/20250818/eba0e633/attachment-0003.png>