* WGs marked with an * asterisk has had at least one new draft made available during the last 5 days

Drip Status Pages

Drone Remote ID Protocol (Active WG)
Int Area: √Čric Vyncke, Erik Kline | 2020-Feb-21 —  

IETF-111 drip minutes


minutes-111-drip-00 minutes

          DRIP UAS RID (Robert Moskowitz)
          Bob presents:
          audience for this draft is mainly for ppl who is outside of IETF. Why
          should they take IETF approach (both manufacturers and civilian aviation
          update since 07:
          - most appendices move to core draft
          - X.509 related text was improved.
          Appendices to core Doc:
          - consoidated HHITs into CTA2063-A sections
          - improving naming, possibly from Adam
          please review IANA considerations.
          - still a draft
          - EdDSA is not yet a NIST standard
          Expand X.509 comparison:
          - text was improved.
          - there is a connection to explain between HHIT and X.509, work is TBD
          - check out DNS example? is this a reasonable way to do that?
          - Adam has a python script to add HHIT as CTA 2063-A numbers
          - ASTM now in ballot of v1.1 of F3411 (should be F3411-21)
          - where to python code (hhit-gen.py)? how do we handle code in our
          draft? in github with reference?
          - Secdir review.
          - 09 revision will address the current comments in few weeks.
          Eric: (lost audio....)
          Bob: will take it to the list
          Daniel: right way to do, possibly put a link in RFC.
          Bob: Adam did million HHIT generations with no collisions.
          RID Arch (Shuai Zhao)
          Currenly -15, addressed a lot of comments
          Stu concerns - Bob and Shuai attempted to address
          Saw Stu response but has yet to read
          Compiled issues from ML and github
          Looking for comments and feedback for next revision
          Big issue to discuss and get a solid result: slide 3
          Bob has said do not like primacy
          Bob: audiance is uas regulatory committee we need to speak out as a voice
          to do this in a trustworthy manner. Qualcomm is pushing 1609.2 as their
          way --> 3GPP. This is how we see it work with our tech
          2 years, no other things put forward here
          Dan: because its arch, generic by potentional other solutions. you look
          now, not so sure. if another solution comes it would have major impact on
          document. personal feeling is to not try and say - not expecting multiple
          solutions to be standardized (??) - document to integrate/replace would
          be needed. should not open door to something to be open
          Bob: MLS arch! it is for the one
          Stu: started coming from avaition community and going to bob, and found
          the hit as a good identifier - agree with bob to not weaken our position
          Eric: we should respect the charter! its a document for wg and then
          ietf community
          Dan: do not see this going against charter
          Stu: charter is silent on singular/plural
          Dan: is there anyone agaisnt removing the word Primary? Shuai what was
          the reason for keeping Primary?
          Shuai: it was there when he had draft, why was it there to begin with?
          Dan: version -15 next week?
          Shuai: Stu gave some comments recently, looks mostly editorial, something
          about section 5
          Req related issues (Stu)
          the relationship among drafts in DRIP, before we can proccedd for
          DRIP is a enhancment of ASTM F3411 and successfully interoprated with
          a baseline ASTM F3411
          We ask F3411 UAS ID type 4, subtype 1 = IETF DRIP, and could be other
          FAA need help for session IDs, hopefully DRIP ID can be accepted by FAA
          as a way of managing Session IDs.
          Roman Danilyw's comments: concern is there places having caveats to
          strenght the req-. The best efforts requiremetn is not consistent with
          RFCxxxx, either MUST or a SHOULD.
          Daniel: agree, we can not have MUST with exceptions. having a SHOULD is
          going to be EOW?
          Stu: need to work on using the appropriate language.
          Bob: Will help Stu with language.
          Stu: is it WG concensus to change the wording after WGLC.
          Eric: it is a editorial thing. we address Roman's comments in next week.
          - put "more complete scenairo figure" to arch-
          - ASTM and CAA drive the req-, once arch is defined, the we can refine
          other solutions.
          - fundamental drip:
              - USA only or cyber-physical entities?
              - section 5, have to talk a little about authentication...

Generated from PyHt script /wg/drip/minutes.pyht Latest update: 24 Oct 2012 16:51 GMT -