Subject: [dtn] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dtn-tcpclv4-07.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 08:13:26 -0700

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Delay/Disruption Tolerant Networking WG of the IETF.

        Title           : Delay-Tolerant Networking TCP Convergence Layer Protocol Version 4
        Authors         : Brian Sipos
                          Michael Demmer
                          Joerg Ott
                          Simon Perreault
	Filename        : draft-ietf-dtn-tcpclv4-07.txt
	Pages           : 41
	Date            : 2018-03-20

Abstract:
   This document describes a revised protocol for the TCP-based
   convergence layer (TCPCL) for Delay-Tolerant Networking (DTN).  The
   protocol revision is based on implementation issues in the original
   TCPCL Version 3 and updates to the Bundle Protocol contents,
   encodings, and convergence layer requirements in Bundle Protocol
   Version 7.  Specifically, the TCPCLv4 uses CBOR-encoded BPv7 bundles
   as its service data unit being transported and provides a reliable
   transport of such bundles.  Several new IANA registries are defined
   for TCPCLv4 which define some behaviors inherited from TCPCLv3 but
   with updated encodings and/or semantics.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dtn-tcpclv4/

There are also htmlized versions available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dtn-tcpclv4-07
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-dtn-tcpclv4-07

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-dtn-tcpclv4-07

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

---

From: Victoria Pritchard <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 12:10:41 +0000

Hi Brian, all,

Just a few general comments on draft-07, mainly about clarifications on the
reactive fragmentation support and the signals between layers.

There were some combinations of CAN_GENERATE and CAN_RECEIVE, and
presence/omission of the header extension item, and the critical flag,
which were not covered by the wording in the draft. Wondered if in some of
those cases the session would still work but with no reactive fragmentation
support?

This also links into the newer bit about signals that go between the BP and
CL, e.g. is received data sent up to BP as each segment arrives, or as a
block when the transfer ends (either succeeds or fails), are sent byte
counts sent to BP as each segment is acked, or is a final count sent when
the transfer ends? Are all of the listed signals required?

Should there be a threshold, a minimum amount that should be transferred
before we would choose to create a fragment from the remaining part of the
original bundle? Should that threshold be set? Should it be configurable,
and if so, how would peers agree on the threshold?

The SHUTDOWN details still need looking at too I think you said.

Also as a final note, I still find the draft uses the word 'node' a lot,
which makes it unclear if CL or BPA is responsible for whatever bit of text
follows.

Kind regards,
Vicky

On Tue, 20 Mar 2018, 15:13 , <[email-masked]> wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> dtn mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dtn
>