F33-BP: No
Rationale
TCPCLv4 acknowledgements can support reactive bundle fragmentation after a session interruption, reducing repeated bytes. However, its reliable transfer remains TCP-based and a broken transfer is reported to the BPA for policy-driven recovery. The selected composition specifies no recovery adaptation covering both prolonged propagation delay and unavailable contact intervals, as required by F33.
Assessment method
Primary specification and pinned code review; no runtime experiment
Source context
BPv7, TCPCLv4 and SABR; comparison with LTP
Outstanding qualification
This No does not negate meaningful interruption recovery: RFC 9174 sections 3.2 and 6.1 explicitly support acknowledgements before closure and explain avoiding redundant retransmission. BP section 5.4 permits another forwarding attempt, subject to policy, lifetime and storage; fragmentation is also subject to bundle/security constraints. These mechanisms do not suspend TCP recovery across contact loss or establish an equivalent long-delay/contact-aware transfer contract. Enlarging timeouts alone does not qualify. No claim that BP cannot cross a long outage, or that LTP is the only possible qualifying mechanism, is made.
Public sources
- https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9174.html#section-3.2
- https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9174.html#section-6.1
- https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9171.html#section-5.4
Editorial evidence references
The following identifiers refer to research records not included in this public package; they are not public links.
- round512.html
- round512-sources.json