Back to matrix

F28-LT: No

Rationale

The selected LTP stack uses BP/SABR for routing and LTP for transfer to a neighboring engine. Choosing the destination engine of one LTP transfer does not select downstream intermediaries of the BP communication. The composition supplies no endpoint path-selection API or enforced multi-hop path constraint.

Assessment method

Primary specification and pinned code review; no runtime experiment

Source context

BP endpoint service, SABR route computation and LTP engine service

Outstanding qualification

LTP is a reliable transfer mechanism, not an end-to-end route-selection service. Its client can identify a remote engine, while the BP/SABR forwarding role chooses the next transfer and future routes. F33 reliable interruption recovery and F32 contact-based planning remain credited independently. A custom chain of application transfers or additional source-route mechanism would require separate selection and qualification.

Public sources

• https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5326.html#section-4
• https://ccsds.org/Pubs/734x3b1.pdf

Editorial evidence references

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

• round516.html
• round516-sources.json