Delay-Tolerant Networking Working Group Scott Burleigh
Internet Draft IPNGROUP
Intended status: Standards Track Alberto Montilla
Expires: January 24, 2025 Spatiam Corporation
Joshua Deaton
SAIC
July 23, 2024
Bundle-in-Bundle Encapsulation
draft-ietf-dtn-bibect-04.txt
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents
at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as
reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
This Internet-Draft will expire on January 24, 2025.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
Burleigh, Montilla, Deaton Expires January 2025 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Bundle-in-Bundle Encapsulation July 2024
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with
respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this
document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in
Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without
warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
Abstract
This document describes Bundle-in-Bundle Encapsulation (BIBE), a
Delay-Tolerant Networking (DTN) Bundle Protocol (BP) "convergence
layer" protocol that tunnels BP "bundles" through encapsulating
bundles. The services provided by the BIBE convergence-layer
protocol adapter encapsulate an outbound BP "bundle" in a BIBE
convergence-layer protocol data unit for transmission as the payload
of a bundle. Security measures applied to the encapsulating bundle
may augment those applied to the encapsulated bundle. The protocol
includes a mechanism for recovery from loss of an encapsulating
bundle, called "custody transfer". This mechanism is adapted from
the custody transfer procedures described in the experimental Bundle
Protocol specification developed by the Delay-Tolerant Networking
Research Group of the Internet Research Task Force and documented in
RFC 5050.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction...................................................3
2. Conventions used in this document..............................4
3. BIBE Design Elements...........................................5
3.1. BIBE Endpoints............................................5
3.2. BIBE Protocol Data Units..................................5
3.3. Custody Signals...........................................6
3.4. Custody Transfer Status Reports...........................8
4. BIBE Procedures................................................8
4.1. BPDU Transmission.........................................8
4.2. BPDU Reception............................................9
4.3. Retransmission Timer Expiration..........................10
4.4. Custody Signal Reception.................................11
5. Security Considerations.......................................11
6. IANA Considerations...........................................12
7. References....................................................12
7.1. Normative References.....................................12
7.2. Informative References...................................12
8. Acknowledgments...............................................12
Appendix A. For More Information.................................14
Appendix B. CDDL expression......................................15
Burleigh, Montilla, Deaton Expires January 2025 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Bundle-in-Bundle Encapsulation July 2024
1. Introduction
This document describes Bundle-in-Bundle Encapsulation (BIBE), a
Delay-Tolerant Networking (DTN) Bundle Protocol (BP) [RFC9171]
"convergence layer" protocol that tunnels BP "bundles" through
encapsulating bundles.
Conformance to the bundle-in-bundle encapsulation (BIBE)
specification is OPTIONAL for BP nodes. Each BP node that conforms
to the BIBE specification provides a BIBE convergence-layer adapter
(CLA) that is implemented by the administrative element of the BP
node's application agent. Like any convergence-layer adapter, the
BIBE CLA provides:
. A transmission service that sends an outbound bundle (from the
bundle protocol agent) to a peer CLA. In the case of BIBE, the
sending CLA and receiving peer CLA are both BP nodes.
. A reception service that delivers to the bundle protocol agent
an inbound bundle that was sent by a peer CLA (itself a BP
node) via the BIBE convergence layer protocol.
The BIBE CLA performs these services by:
. Encapsulating outbound bundles in BIBE protocol data units,
which take the form of Bundle Protocol administrative records
as described later.
. Requesting that the bundle protocol agent transmit bundles
whose payloads are BIBE protocol data units.
. Taking delivery of BIBE protocol data units that are the
payloads of bundles received by the bundle protocol agent.
. Delivering to the bundle protocol agent the bundles that are
encapsulated in delivered BIBE protocol data units.
Bundle-in-bundle encapsulation may have broad utility, but the
principal motivating use case is the deployment of "cross domain
solutions" in DTN networks. Under some circumstances a bundle may
arrive at a node that is on the frontier of a sector of network
topology in which any of the below scenarios may be present,
. Augmented security is required, from which the bundle must
egress at some other designated node. In that case, the bundle
may be encapsulated within a bundle to which the requisite
additional BP Security (BPSEC) [RFC9172] extension block(s) can
be attached, whose source is the point of entry into the
insecure region (the "security source") and whose destination
is the point of egress from the insecure region (the "security
destination").
Burleigh, Montilla, Deaton Expires January 2025 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Bundle-in-Bundle Encapsulation July 2024
. Bundles conforming to Bundle Protocol Version 6 [RFC5050] may
need to traverse a network using Bundle Protocol Version 7
[RFC9171]. In that case, the incoming bundle (BPv6) may be
encapsulated within a bundle (BPv7) which is forwarded through
the BPv7 based network.
. Application of other per-domain policies, including forwarding,
custody and quality of service. In that case, the node
encapsulating incoming bundles within a new bundle, can apply
different policies without modifying the encapsulated bundle
parameters. This may be especially useful in service provider
networks defining their policies at the edge of a network.
Note that:
. If the payload of the encapsulating bundle is protected by a
Bundle Confidentiality Block (BCB), then the source and
destination of the encapsulated bundle are encrypted, providing
defense against traffic analysis that BPSEC alone cannot offer.
. Bundles whose payloads are BIBE protocol data units may
themselves be forwarded via a BIBE convergence-layer adapter,
enabling nested bundle encapsulation to arbitrary depth as
required by security policy.
. Moreover, in the event that no single point of egress from an
insecure region of network topology can be determined at the
moment a bundle is to be encapsulated, multiple copies of the
bundle may be encapsulated individually and forwarded to all
candidate points of egress.
The protocol includes a mechanism for recovery from loss of an
encapsulating bundle, called "custody transfer". This mechanism is
adapted from the custody transfer procedures described in the
experimental Bundle Protocol specification developed by the Delay-
Tolerant Networking Research Group of the Internet Research Task
Force and documented in RFC 5050 [RFC5050]. Custody transfer is a
convention by which the loss or corruption of BIBE encapsulating
bundles can be mitigated by the exchange of other bundles, which are
termed "custody signals".
2. Conventions used in this document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC-2119 [RFC2119].
In this document, these words will appear with that interpretation
only when in ALL CAPS. Lower case uses of these words are not to be
interpreted as carrying RFC-2119 significance.
Burleigh, Montilla, Deaton Expires January 2025 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Bundle-in-Bundle Encapsulation July 2024
3. BIBE Design Elements
3.1. BIBE Endpoints
BIBE convergence-layer protocol endpoints, also known as BIBE
convergence-layer adapters (BCLAs), are implemented by the
administrative elements of the application agents of BP nodes that
conform to the BIBE protocol specification. The node of which a
given BCLA is one component is termed the BCLA's "local node". A BP
node that includes a BCLA is termed a "BIBE node".
3.2. BIBE Protocol Data Units
A BIBE protocol data unit (BPDU) is a Bundle Protocol administrative
record whose record type code is 3 (i.e., bit pattern 0011), whose
representation conforms to the Bundle Protocol specification for
administrative record representation, and whose content SHALL be a
BPDU message represented as described later.
A BIBE Protocol Data Unit (BPDU) for which custody transfer is
requested is termed a "custodial BPDU".
Notionally, a BCLA is assumed to implement in some way, for each
BIBE node to which the local node issues custodial BPDUs, the
following two data resources:
1. A "custodial transmission count" (CTC). A CTC is a
monotonically increasing integer indicating the number of
custodial BPDUs that have been issued to this BIBE node by the
local node since instantiation of the local node.
2. A "custodial transmission database" (CTDB), a notional array of
"custodial transmission items" (CTIs). The CTDB contains one
CTI for each custodial BPDU issued to this BIBE node, by the
local node, for which (a) no custody disposition has yet been
received in any custody signal (as discussed later) and (b) the
bundle encapsulated in that BPDU has not yet been destroyed due
to, e.g., time-to-live expiration. Each CTI notionally
contains:
a. A reference to the bundle encapsulated in the
corresponding BPDU.
b. The "transmission ID" of the corresponding BPDU, as
discussed below.
c. A "retransmission time" indicating the time by which
custody disposition for the corresponding BDPU is
expected.
Burleigh, Montilla, Deaton Expires January 2025 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Bundle-in-Bundle Encapsulation July 2024
The BPDU messages that constitute the content of BIBE protocol data
unit administrative records are represented as follows.
Each BPDU message SHALL be represented as a CBOR array. The number
of elements in the array SHALL be 3.
The first item of the BPDU array SHALL be the "transmission ID" for
the BPDU, represented as a CBOR unsigned integer. The transmission
ID for a BPDU for which custody transfer is NOT requested SHALL be
zero. The transmission ID for a BPDU for which custody transfer IS
requested SHALL be the current value of the local node's custodial
transmission count for the BIBE node to which the BPDU is to be
issued, plus 1.
The second item of the BPDU array SHALL be the BPDU's retransmission
time (i.e., the time by which custody disposition for this BPDU is
expected), represented as a CBOR unsigned integer. Retransmission
time for a BPDU for which custody transfer is NOT requested SHALL be
zero. Retransmission time for a BPDU for which custody transfer IS
requested SHALL take the form of a "DTN Time" as defined in the
Bundle Protocol specification; determination of the value of
retransmission time is an implementation matter that is beyond the
scope of this specification and may be dynamically responsive to
changes in connectivity.
The third item of the BPDU array SHALL be a single BP bundle, termed
the "encapsulated bundle", represented as a CBOR byte string of
definite length.
3.3. Custody Signals
A "custody signal" is a Bundle Protocol administrative record whose
record type code is 4 (i.e., bit pattern 0100) and whose
representation conforms to the Bundle Protocol specification for
administrative record representation. The content of the record
shall be a Custody message represented as follows.
Each custody message SHALL be represented as a CBOR array. The
number of elements in the array SHALL be 2.
The first item of the custody signal content array SHALL be a
disposition code represented as a CBOR unsigned integer. Valid
disposition codes are defined as follows:
+---------+--------------------------------------------+
| Value | Meaning |
Burleigh, Montilla, Deaton Expires January 2025 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Bundle-in-Bundle Encapsulation July 2024
+=========+============================================+
| 0 | Custody accepted. |
+---------+--------------------------------------------+
| 1 | No further information. |
+---------+--------------------------------------------+
| 2 | Reserved for future use. |
+---------+--------------------------------------------+
| 3 | Redundant (reception by a node that |
| | already has a copy of this bundle). |
+---------+--------------------------------------------+
| 4 | Depleted storage. |
+---------+--------------------------------------------+
| 5 | Destination endpoint ID unintelligible. |
+---------+--------------------------------------------+
| 6 | No known route destination from here. |
+---------+--------------------------------------------+
| 7 | No timely contact with next node on route. |
+---------+--------------------------------------------+
| 8 | Block unintelligible. |
+---------+--------------------------------------------+
| (other) | Reserved for future use. |
+---------+--------------------------------------------+
Figure 1: Disposition Codes
Burleigh, Montilla, Deaton Expires January 2025 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Bundle-in-Bundle Encapsulation July 2024
The second item of the custody signal content array SHALL be a
"disposition scope report", represented as a CBOR array of definite
length. Each item of the disposition scope report array SHALL be a
"disposition scope sequence", represented as a CBOR array of two
elements. The first element of each disposition scope sequence
array SHALL be the first transmission ID in a sequence of 1 or more
consecutive transmission IDs corresponding to BPDUs to which the
custody signal's disposition is declared to apply; the second
element of each disposition scope sequence array SHALL be the number
of transmission IDs in that sequence. Both are represented as CBOR
unsigned integers.
A custody signal constitutes an assertion by the source of that
administrative record that the indicated disposition code applies to
all BPDUs identified by the transmission IDs enumerated in the
custody signal's disposition scope report. If the disposition code
is zero, then the source of the custody signal has accepted custody
of all bundles that were encapsulated in the indicated BPDUs.
Otherwise the source of the custody signal has refused custody of
all bundles that were encapsulated in the indicated BPDUs, for the
indicated reason.
4. BIBE Procedures
4.1. BPDU Transmission
When a BCLA is requested by the bundle protocol agent to send a
bundle to the peer BCLA(s) included in the destination BP endpoint
identified by a specified BP endpoint ID:
. The BCLA SHALL generate, as defined in Section 6.2 of the
Bundle Protocol specification, a BPDU for which the third
element of the content array is the bundle that is to be
transmitted. The destination of the bundle whose payload is the
BPDU (termed the "encapsulating bundle") SHALL be the specified
destination BP endpoint. Selection of the values of the
parameters governing the forwarding of the encapsulating
bundle, other than the destination endpoint ID, is an
implementation matter. The parameter values governing the
forwarding of the BPDU's encapsulated bundle MAY be consulted
for this purpose.
. Note that any transmission request presented to a BCLA MAY
request that the transmission be subject to Custody Transfer,
provided that the destination EID of the request identifies a
singleton endpoint.
. If Custody Transfer is requested:
Burleigh, Montilla, Deaton Expires January 2025 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Bundle-in-Bundle Encapsulation July 2024
o The first element of the BPDU's content array MUST be the
BPDU's transmission ID, which SHALL be 1 more than the
current value of the BCLA's CTC for the node that is the
sole occupant of the BPDU's destination endpoint.
o The second element of the BPDU's content array MUST be the
BPDU's retransmission time as discussed in 3.2 above.
o The bundle protocol agent MUST add the retention constraint
"Custody accepted" to the encapsulated bundle.
o The BCLA MAY establish a retransmission timer for the
corresponding CTI. If a retransmission timer is
established, it MUST be set to expire at the
retransmission time indicated in the BPDU.
. Otherwise:
o The first two elements of the BPDU's content array MUST
both be zero.
o Upon completion of step 2 of Section 6.2 of the Bundle
Protocol specification (i.e., a request for transmission
of the encapsulating bundle has been presented to the
bundle protocol agent), the BCLA SHOULD notify the bundle
protocol agent that transmission of the encapsulated
bundle succeeded.
Note that the custody transfer retransmission timer mechanism
provides a means of recovering from loss of an encapsulating bundle
as indicated by non-arrival of a responding custody signal.
4.2. BPDU Reception
When a BCLA receives a BPDU from the bundle protocol agent (that is,
upon delivery of the payload of an encapsulating bundle):
. If Custody Transfer was requested for this BPDU (as indicated
by a non-zero value of transmission ID):
o If the encapsulated bundle has the same source node ID,
creation timestamp, and (if that bundle is a fragment)
fragment offset and payload length as another bundle that
is currently retained at the BCLA's local node, then
custody transfer redundancy MUST be handled as follows:
. The BCLA SHALL add the BPDU's transmission ID to the
disposition scope report of a pending outbound
custody signal, destined for the node that was the
source of the encapsulating bundle, whose disposition
is the reason code from Figure 1 for "Redundant
reception".
o Otherwise, if the BCLA determines that its local node can
neither deliver nor forward the encapsulated bundle for
any of the reasons listed in Figure 1, then custody
Burleigh, Montilla, Deaton Expires January 2025 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Bundle-in-Bundle Encapsulation July 2024
transfer has failed. Custody transfer failure SHALL be
handled as follows:
. The BCLA SHALL add the BPDU's transmission ID to the
disposition scope report of a pending outbound
custody signal, destined for the node that was the
source of the encapsulating bundle, whose disposition
is the reason code from Figure 1 that indicates the
reason for the custody transfer failure.
o Otherwise, custody transfer has succeeded:
. The BCLA SHALL add the BPDU's transmission ID to the
disposition scope report of a pending outbound
custody signal, destined for the node that was the
source of the encapsulating bundle, whose disposition
is zero (indicating that custody was accepted).
o In each of these three cases:
. The pending outbound custody signal MAY then be
issued immediately, but alternatively it MAY be
issued at some time in the future, possibly enabling
additional BPDUs' transmission IDs to be added to the
same disposition scope report.
. If Custody Transfer was NOT requested for this BPDU, or if
Custody Transfer was requested for this BPDU and custody
transfer succeeded, then the encapsulated bundle SHALL be
delivered from the BCLA to the bundle protocol agent, whereupon
reception of the encapsulated bundle SHALL be performed as
defined in section 5.6 of the Bundle Protocol specification in
the usual manner: the encapsulated bundle may be forwarded,
delivered, etc.
Note that the procedures by which pending outbound custody signals
are managed, disposition scope reports are aggregated, and custody
signal transmission is initiated are implementation matters that
are beyond the scope of this specification. Note, however, that
failure to deliver a custody signal prior to the earliest value of
retransmission time among all BPDUs enumerated in the custody
signal's disposition scope report may result in the unnecessary
re-forwarding of one or more encapsulated bundles.
4.3. Retransmission Timer Expiration
Upon expiration of a retransmission timer, the BCLA SHOULD remove
the corresponding CTI from the CTDB (destroying the associated
retransmission timer, if any) and notify the bundle protocol agent
that transmission failed for the encapsulated bundle referenced by
that CTI. Note that this notification may cause the encapsulated
bundle to be re-forwarded (possibly on a different route).
Burleigh, Montilla, Deaton Expires January 2025 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Bundle-in-Bundle Encapsulation July 2024
4.4. Custody Signal Reception
When a BCLA receives a custody signal from the bundle protocol agent
(that is, upon delivery of the payload of a custody-signal-bearing
bundle):
. If the custody signal's disposition is 0 (custody acceptance),
then for each transmission ID in the custody signal's
disposition scope report:
o The bundle protocol agent MUST remove the retention
constraint "Custody accepted" on the encapsulated bundle
referenced by the corresponding CTI.
o The corresponding CTI MUST be removed from the CTDB
(destroying the associated retransmission timer, if any).
o The BCLA SHOULD notify the bundle protocol agent that
transmission succeeded for the encapsulated bundle
referenced by the corresponding CTI.
. Otherwise (custody refusal), for each transmission ID in the
custody signal's disposition scope report:
o The corresponding CTI MUST be removed from the CTDB
(destroying the associated retransmission timer, if any).
o Any further action taken by the BCLA is implementation-
specific and may depend on the reason code cited for the
refusal. For example, if the custody signal's reason code
was "Depleted storage", the BCLA might choose to notify
the bundle protocol agent that transmission failed for the
encapsulated bundle referenced by the corresponding CTI.
If the reason code was "Redundant reception", on the other
hand, the BCLA might simply instruct the bundle protocol
agent to remove the retention constraint "Custody
accepted" on the encapsulated bundle referenced by the
corresponding CTI and to revise its algorithm for
computing retransmission time.
5. Security Considerations
An adversary on a DTN-based network that can delete bundles could
delete a BIBE custody signal in transit. This could result in
custody transfer failure and the possible re-forwarding of
encapsulated bundles, degrading network performance.
Alternatively, an adversary on a DTN-based network that can reorder
bundles could cause bundles to be delivered to a BCLA in an order
that complicates the efficient construction of disposition scope
reports in pending outbound custody signals. This could result in
inefficient custody transfer communications, again degrading network
performance.
Burleigh, Montilla, Deaton Expires January 2025 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Bundle-in-Bundle Encapsulation July 2024
Custody transfer in BIBE may be contraindicated in environments
characterized by such attacks.
6. IANA Considerations
The BIBE specification requires IANA registration of the new BIBE
administrative records (type codes 3 and 4) defined above.
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[RFC9171] Burleigh, S., Fall, K., and Birrane, E., "Bundle Protocol
Version 7", RFC 9171, January 2022.
[RFC9172] Birrane, E. and McKeever, K., "Bundle Protocol Security
(BPSec)", RFC 9172, January 2022.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
7.2. Informative References
[RFC5050] Scott, K. and S. Burleigh, "Bundle Protocol
Specification", RFC 5050, November 2007.
8. Acknowledgments
This work is freely adapted from [RFC5050], which was an effort of
the Delay Tolerant Networking Research Group. The following DTNRG
participants contributed significant technical material and/or
inputs to that document: Dr. Vinton Cerf of Google, Scott Burleigh,
Adrian Hooke, and Leigh Torgerson of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory,
Michael Demmer of the University of California at Berkeley, Robert
Durst, Keith Scott, and Susan Symington of The MITRE Corporation,
Kevin Fall of Carnegie Mellon University, Stephen Farrell of Trinity
College Dublin, Peter Lovell and Howard Weiss of SPARTA, Inc., and
Manikantan Ramadas of Ohio University.
The custody transfer procedures defined in this specification are
adapted from the Aggregate Custody Signals draft specification
authored in 2010-2012 by Sebastian Kuzminsky and Andrew Jenkins,
then of the University of Colorado at Boulder.
Although the BIBE specification diverges in some ways from the
original Bundle-in-Bundle Encapsulation Internet Draft authored by
Susan Symington, Bob Durst, and Keith Scott of The MITRE Corporation
Burleigh, Montilla, Deaton Expires January 2025 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Bundle-in-Bundle Encapsulation July 2024
(draft-irtf-dtnrg-bundle-encapsulation-06, 2009), the influence of
that earlier document is gratefully acknowledged.
This document was prepared using 2-Word-v2.0.template.dot.
Burleigh, Montilla, Deaton Expires January 2025 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Bundle-in-Bundle Encapsulation July 2024
Appendix A. For More Information
Please refer comments to dtn@ietf.org. The Delay Tolerant Networking
Research Group (DTNRG) Web site is located at http://www.dtnrg.org.
Copyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as authors
of the code. All rights reserved.
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, is permitted pursuant to, and subject to the license
terms contained in, the Simplified BSD License set forth in Section
4.c of the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
Burleigh, Montilla, Deaton Expires January 2025 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Bundle-in-Bundle Encapsulation July 2024
Appendix B. CDDL expression
For informational purposes, Carsten Bormann has kindly provided an
expression of the Bundle Protocol specification in the CBOR Data
Definition Language (CDDL). Portions of CDDL expression that bear
on the custody transfer extension are presented below, somewhat
edited by the authors. Note that wherever the CDDL expression is in
disagreement with the textual representation of the BP specification
presented in the earlier sections of this document, the textual
representation rules.
admin-record-choice /= BIBE-PDU
BIBE-PDU = [3, [transmission-ID: uint,
retransmission-time: uint,
encapsulated-bundle: bytes,
admin-common]]
admin-record-choice /= custody-signal
custody-signal = [4, [disposition-code: uint,
disposition-scope-report,
admin-common]]
disposition-scope-report = *disposition-scope-sequence
disposition-scope-sequence = [first-transmission-ID: uint,
number-of-transmission-IDs: uint]
Authors' Addresses
Scott Burleigh
IPNGROUP
1435 Woodhurst Blvd.
McLean, VA 22102
US
Email: sburleigh.sb@gmail.com
Burleigh, Montilla, Deaton Expires January 2025 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Bundle-in-Bundle Encapsulation July 2024
Alberto Montilla
Spatiam Corporation
1200 Conroe Dr.
Allen, TX 75013
US
Email: a.montilla@spatiam.com
Joshua Deaton
Science Applications International Corporation - SAIC
Email: joshua.e.deaton@nasa.gov
Burleigh, Montilla, Deaton Expires January 2025 [Page 16]
