Subject: Re: [dtn] custody transfer I-D

From: William Ivancic <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2017 23:34:07 -0400

From: dtn <[email-masked]> on behalf of "Burleigh, Scott C (312B)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thursday, June 22, 2017 at 8:04 PM
To: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [dtn] custody transfer I-D

(custody refusal actually indicates  #1: successful data arrival,  #2: just at an incapable forwarding point)

I don’t believe either 1 or 2 are necessarily correct.   

Regarding #2:  A node may not want the responsibility of a custodian but still store and forward the bundle.  In that case, the node is certainly capable of forwarding and has even done so.

Regarding #1:  Why wouldn’t a node refuse custody as soon as possible?  For Example, Why wait to receive and entire 20 Mbyte bundle over a low rate wireless link before telling the sender, “Don’t bother. You have no service level agreement with me.”  

Unfortunately, the operational concepts where not thought through and documented prior to designing this protocol.  

---------------

Will