F33-CG: No
Rationale
Adding SABR contact/range plans to BP/TCPCL enables schedule-aware route selection but does not replace the selected TCPCL reliable-transfer behavior. Planned forwarding and possible reactive fragmentation do not establish transfer recovery adapted to both prolonged propagation delay and interruptions. The selected composition has no LTP or equivalent contact-aware recovery layer.
Assessment method
Primary specification and pinned code review; no runtime experiment
Source context
BPv7, TCPCLv4 and SABR; comparison with LTP
Outstanding qualification
SABR retains its positive F32 route-planning and F24 scheduled-reception assessments. F33 evaluates a different mechanism: acknowledgements, retries and recovery while transfer opportunities disappear. TCPCL can close and report failure, and BP may retry later; credit for those behaviors does not imply suspended recovery timers or a long-delay transfer contract. The LTP column explicitly selects the RFC 5326 mechanism and remains Yes. This is a documentary composition finding, not an interoperability test or a claim of failed DTN delivery.
Public sources
- https://ccsds.org/Pubs/734x3b1.pdf
- https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9174.html#section-5.1.1
- https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5326.html#section-6.5
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