Licklider Transmission Protocol - Specification
RFC 5326

Received changes through RFC Editor sync (changed abstract to 'This document describes the Licklider Transmission Protocol (LTP), designed to provide retransmission-based reliability over links characterized by extremely long message round-trip times (RTTs) and/or frequent interruptions in connectivity. Since communication across interplanetary space is the most prominent example of this sort of environment, LTP is principally aimed at supporting "long-haul" reliable transmission in interplanetary space, but it has applications in other environments as well.

This document is a product of the Delay Tolerant Networking Research Group and has been reviewed by that group. No objections to its publication as an RFC were raised. This memo defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet community.')

[Ballot comment]
ltp-extensions, Section 2.1 says "There is only one signature
algorithm currently defined for this which is RSA with SHA256 [RSA]".
The reference [RSA] specifies *two* different RSA-based signature
mechanisms, so it's not clear which of them is used.

[Ballot discuss]
These documents specify a protocol, so should the IESG note be
based on item #2 from RFC 3932 Section 4 (instead of #3 from the
same section)?

[Ballot comment]
I have a vague feeling that the messages that extend the current
LTP cookie should also contain an LTP auth extension (preferably
using the OriginAuth or Signature ciphersuite).  Otherwise, a MITM
could lock either participant out of their own session, can't they?

*If* I am correct, the security considerations should note any interdependencies...

IANA Evaluation questions:

- Upon approval of this document, should the reference for port
1113 be changed from Manikantan Ramadas to [RFC-irtf-dtnrg-ltp-09.txt]?

- In section 3.1.4: Do you want an IANA registry of Extension Tags?

- In section 3.2.4: Do you want an IANA registry of Reason Codes?