Back to matrix

F24-BP: No

Rationale

BPv7 retention and TCPCLv4 session policies support disrupted connectivity, but the selected Secure DTN composition includes no shared receiver availability schedule. TCPCL active-only periodic polling discovers transfer opportunities by opening a connection; it does not tell a sleeping receiver in advance when to listen.

Assessment method

Primary specification and pinned code review; no runtime experiment

Source context

SABR contact plans, LTP operating schedules and BP/TCPCL

Outstanding qualification

Bundles can wait for a later connection subject to expiry and storage constraints. That alone does not coordinate delivery with planned sleep. A supplied contact schedule and matching link management could provide the missing behavior, as evaluated separately in CGR/SABR and LTP columns; those components are not selected here. No claim that BP prohibits such extensions or that custody is necessary for every scheduled delivery.

Public sources

• https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9174.html#section-3.5
• https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9171.html

Editorial evidence references

The following identifiers refer to research records not included in this public package; they are not public links.

• round506.html
• round506-sources.json