F35-CG: Yes
Archived previous-definition assessment — revision 5.73. Retired in 5.82; excluded from the active matrix and counts. This historical verdict is not a current assessment.
Rationale
A bounded deployment keeps source and destination BP agents and applications unchanged, with the source forwarding to its existing ingress gateway. Intermediate BP nodes replace fixed forwarding choices with the selected SABR/CGR planner, using supplied contact times and capacities to choose feasible onward routes. This adds schedule-aware path management inside the network. RFC 9171 section 5.4 leaves next-node selection to local forwarding procedures and explicitly identifies SABR as one possible mechanism; no new endpoint request or application protocol is required for this transit routing decision.
Assessment method
Primary specification architecture and explicit deployment inference; no runtime test
Source context
RFC 9171 section 5.4 and CCSDS 734.3-B-1 sections 2.2-2.4 and 3
Outstanding qualification
Architectural Yes for existing compatible BP endpoints, not installation on legacy non-BP hosts. Keep endpoint EIDs, applications, first/last-hop convergence layers, end-to-end security policy and adequate bundle lifetimes unchanged. Transit nodes need the planner, consistent contact/range plans, clocks and operational forwarding resources. Use ordinary singleton traffic; no custody or critical-bundle feature is needed for this witness. The selected BPv7/SABR metadata binding and full executable integration remain unqualified. This does not claim that every bundle benefits, that endpoint lifetimes can be ignored, or that delivery is guaranteed. No deployment or interoperability experiment was run. CG preserves the selected TCPCLv4/TLS boundary at its endpoints.
Public sources
Editorial evidence references
The following identifiers refer to research records not included in this public package; they are not public links.
- round483.html
- round483-sources.json