F36-LT: Yes
Rationale
The application supplies a bundle lifespan through the BP send interface. SABR 3.2.6.9 rejects routes predicted to miss that expiry and depleted routes; 3.2.6.8 and 3.2.8.1.2 account for available volume and debit the selected contacts when enqueuing a bundle. Thus the requested delivery time bound affects admission to a planned route and allocation of its capacity, beyond merely marking priority. ION BPv7 at the selected source pin corroborates the lifespan API and CGR checks against expirationTime and contact MTV. In this column the credited mechanism belongs to its explicitly selected BP/SABR layer, not to LTP alone.
Assessment method
Documentary plausibility with selected-version source corroboration
Source context
BPv7; CCSDS SABR 734.3-B-1; ION selected pin; GNUnet 0.20 ATS
Outstanding qualification
Architectural Yes for deadline-aware per-bundle route admission and local contact-volume accounting. A single common priority level suffices (SABR 3.2.6.8.1), so this witness does not depend on unresolved BPv7 propagation of priority, critical or custody metadata. It is not a distributed hard reservation, guaranteed deadline, or complete executable binding: unknown downstream backlog and contact-plan errors remain, and no candidate means CGR makes no forwarding selection (3.2.7); storage, expiry or supplementary routing policy still applies. No synchronous end-to-end service acceptance is claimed. LTP all-red reliability and the unqualified LTP/Encapsulation/AOS integration do not supply an independent QoS guarantee.
Public sources
- https://public.ccsds.org/Pubs/734x3b1.pdf
- https://github.com/nasa-jpl/ION-DTN/blob/154a4cc7354b26661169f8d8b75a4002cd509a9f/bpv7/library/libbp.c
- https://github.com/nasa-jpl/ION-DTN/blob/154a4cc7354b26661169f8d8b75a4002cd509a9f/bpv7/cgr/libcgr.c
Editorial evidence references
The following identifiers refer to research records not included in this public package; they are not public links.
- round705.html