Drone Remote Identification Protocol (DRIP) Requirements
draft-card-drip-reqs-01
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (individual) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Stuart W. Card , Adam Wiethuechter , Robert Moskowitz | ||
| Last updated | 2020-03-24 | ||
| Replaces | draft-card-tmrid-uas, draft-card-tmrid-uas-reqs | ||
| Replaced by | draft-ietf-drip-reqs, RFC 9153 | ||
| Stream | (None) | ||
| Formats | plain text html xml htmlized pdfized bibtex | ||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-card-drip-reqs-01
DRIP S. Card
Internet-Draft A. Wiethuechter
Intended status: Informational AX Enterprize
Expires: 25 September 2020 R. Moskowitz
HTT Consulting
24 March 2020
Drone Remote Identification Protocol (DRIP) Requirements
draft-card-drip-reqs-01
Abstract
This document defines the requirements for Drone Remote
Identification Protocol (DRIP) Working Group protocols and services
to support Unmanned Aircraft System Remote Identification (UAS RID).
Objectives include: complementing external technical standards as
regulator-accepted means of compliance with UAS RID regulations;
facilitating use of existing Internet resources to support UAS RID
and to enable enhanced related services; and enabling verification
that UAS RID information is trustworthy (to some extent, even in the
absence of Internet connectivity at the receiving node).
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). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
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."
This Internet-Draft will expire on 25 September 2020.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 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 (https://trustee.ietf.org/
Card, et al. Expires 25 September 2020 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft DRIP Reqs March 2020
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
Please review these documents 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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terms and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. Requirements Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. UAS RID Problem Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.1. Network RID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2. Broadcast RID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.3. DRIP Focus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.1. General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.2. UAS Identifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1. Introduction
Many safety and other considerations dictate that UAS be remotely
identifiable. Civil Aviation Authorities (CAAs) worldwide are
mandating UAS RID. The European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)
has published [Delegated] and [Implementing] Regulations. The United
States (US) Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has published a
Notice of Proposed Rule Making ([NPRM]). CAAs currently promulgate
performance-based regulations that do not specify techniques, but
rather cite industry consensus technical standards as acceptable
means of compliance.
ASTM International, Technical Committee F38 (UAS), Subcommittee
F38.02 (Aircraft Operations), Work Item WK65041, developed new ASTM
F3411-19 [F3411-19] Standard Specification for Remote ID and
Tracking. It defines 2 means of UAS RID. Network RID defines a set
of information for UAS to make available globally indirectly via the
Internet. Broadcast RID defines a set of messages for Unmanned
Aircraft (UA) to transmit locally directly one-way over Bluetooth or
Wi-Fi. Network RID depends upon Internet connectivity, in several
Card, et al. Expires 25 September 2020 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft DRIP Reqs March 2020
segments, from the UAS to the observer. Broadcast RID should need
Internet (or other Wide Area Network) connectivity only for UAS
registry information lookup using the directly locally received UAS
ID as a key.
[F3411-19] specifies 3 UAS ID types. Type 1 is a static,
manufacturer assigned, hardware serial number per ANSI/CTA-2063-A
"Small Unmanned Aerial System Serial Numbers" [CTA2063A]. Type 2 is
a CAA assigned (presumably static) ID. Type 3 is a UAS Traffic
Management (UTM) system assigned UUID [RFC4122], which can but need
not be dynamic. The EU allows only Type 1; the US allows Types 1 and
3, but requires Type 3 IDs (if used) each to be used only once.
[F3411-19] Broadcast RID transmits all information in the clear as
plaintext, so Type 1 static IDs enable trivial correlation of
patterns of use, unacceptable in many applications, e.g. package
delivery routes of competitors.
An ID is not an end in itself; it exists to enable lookups and
provision of services complementing mere identification.
Minimal specified information must be made available to the public;
access to other data, e.g. UAS operator Personally Identifiable
Information (PII), must be limited to strongly authenticated
personnel, properly authorized per policy. [F3411-19] specifies only
how to get the UAS ID to the observer; how the observer can perform
these lookups, and how the registries first can be populated with
information, is unspecified.
Although using UAS RID to facilitate related services, such as Detect
And Avoid (DAA) and other applications of Vehicle to Vehicle or
Vehicle to Infrastructure (V2V, V2I, collectively V2X)
communications, is an obvious application (explicitly contemplated in
the FAA NPRM), it has been omitted from [F3411-19] (explicitly
declared out of scope in the ASTM working group discussions based on
a distinction between RID as a security standard vs DAA as a safety
application). Although dynamic establishment of secure
communications between the observer and the UAS pilot seems to have
been contemplated by the FAA UAS ID and Tracking Aviation Rulemaking
Committee (ARC) in their [Recommendations], it is not addressed in
any of the subsequent proposed regulations or technical
specifications.
The need for near-universal deployment of UAS RID is pressing. This
implies the need to support use by observers of already ubiquitous
mobile devices (smartphones and tablets). UA onboard RID devices are
severely constrained in Size, Weight and Power (SWaP). Cost is a
significant impediment to the necessary near-universal adoption of
UAS send and observer receive RID capabilities. To accommodate the
Card, et al. Expires 25 September 2020 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft DRIP Reqs March 2020
most severely constrained cases, all these conspire to motivate
system design decisions, especially for the Broadcast RID data link,
which complicate the protocol design problem: one-way links;
extremely short packets; and Internet-disconnected operation of UA
onboard devices. Internet-disconnected operation of observer devices
has been deemed by ASTM F38.02 too infrequent to address, but for
some users is important and presents further challenges. Heavyweight
security protocols are infeasible, yet trustworthiness of UAS RID
information is essential. Under [F3411-19], even the most basic
datum, the UAS ID string (typically number) itself can be merely an
unsubstantiated claim.
DRIP's goal is to make RID immediately actionable, in both Internet
and local-only connected scenarios (especially emergencies), in
severely constrained UAS environments, balancing legitimate (e.g.
public safety) authorities' Need To Know trustworthy information with
UAS operators' privacy. To accomplish this, DRIP WG will liaise with
SDOs and complement their standards with IETF work to meet this
urgent need. An Applicability Statement RFC for UAS RID, showing how
to use IETF standardized technologies for this purpose, will be a
central work product. Technical Specification RFCs will address any
necessary enhancements of specific supporting protocols. DRIP
(originally called Trustworthy Multipurpose Remote Identification,
TM-RID) potentially could be applied to verifiably identify other
types of registered things reported to be in specified physical
locations, but the urgent motivation and clear initial focus is UAS.
Existing Internet resources (business models, infrastructure and
protocol standards) should be leveraged. A natural Internet
architecture for UAS RID conforming to proposed regulations and
external technical standards will be described in a companion DRIP
Architecture document; this document describes only requirements.
2. Terms and Definitions
2.1. Requirements Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
2.2. Definitions
$SWaP
Cost, Size, Weight and Power.
Card, et al. Expires 25 September 2020 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft DRIP Reqs March 2020
AAA
Attestation, Authentication, Authorization, Access Control,
Accounting, Attribution, Audit.
ABDAA
AirBorne DAA. Also known as "self-separation".
AGL
Above Ground Level. Relative altitude, above the variously
defined local ground level, typically of an UA, typically measured
in feet.
CAA
Civil Aviation Authority. An example is the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) in the United States of America.
C2
Command and Control. A set of organizational and technical
attributes and processes that employs human, physical, and
information resources to solve problems and accomplish missions.
Mainly used in military contexts.
DAA
Detect And Avoid, formerly Sense And Avoid (SAA). A means of
keeping aircraft "well clear" of each other for safety.
E2E
End to End.
GBDAA
Ground Based DAA.
GCS
Ground Control Station. The part of the UAS that the remote pilot
uses to exercise C2 over the UA, whether by remotely exercising UA
flight controls to fly the UA, by setting GPS waypoints, or
otherwise directing its flight.
GPS
Global Positioning System. In this context, misused in place of
Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) or more generally SATNAV
to refer generically to satellite based timing and/or positioning.
Limited RID
Per the FAA NPRM, a mode of operation that must use Network RID,
must not use Broadcast RID, and must provide pilot/GCS location
only (not UA location). This mode is only allowed for UA that
neither require (due to e.g. size) nor are equipped for Standard
Card, et al. Expires 25 September 2020 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft DRIP Reqs March 2020
RID, operated within V-LOS and within 400 feet of the pilot, below
400 feet AGL, etc.
LOS
Line Of Sight. An adjectival phrase describing any information
transfer that travels in a nearly straight line (e.g.
electromagnetic energy, whether in the visual light, RF or other
frequency range) and is subject to blockage. A term to be avoided
due to ambiguity, in this context, between RF-LOS and V-LOS.
MSL
Mean Sea Level. Relative altitude, above the variously defined
mean sea level, typically of an UA (but in FAA NPRM Limited RID
for a GCS), typically measured in feet.
NETDP
UAS RID Display Provider. System component that requests data
from one or more NETSP and aggregates them to display to a user
application on a device. Often an USS.
NETSP
UAS RID Service Provider. System component that compiles
information from various sources (and methods) in its given
service area. Usually an USS.
Observer
Referred to in other UAS RID documents as a "user", but there are
also other classes of UAS RID users, so we prefer "observer" to
denote an individual who has observed an UA and wishes to know
something about it, starting with its ID.
PII
Personally Identifiable Information. In this context, typically
of the UAS operator, Pilot In Command (PIC) or remote pilot, but
possibly of an observer or other party.
RF
Radio Frequency. May be used as an adjective or as a noun; in the
latter case, typically means Radio Frequency energy.
RF-LOS
RF LOS. Typically used in describing operation of a direct radio
link between a GCS and the UA under its control, potentially
subject to blockage by foliage, structures, terrain or other
vehicles, but less so than V-LOS.
Standard RID
Per the FAA NPRM, a mode of operation that must use both Network
Card, et al. Expires 25 September 2020 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft DRIP Reqs March 2020
RID (if Internet connectivity is available at the time in the
operating area) and Broadcast RID (always and everywhere), and
must provide both pilot/GCS location and UA location. This mode
is required for UAS that exceed the allowed envelope (e.g. size,
range) of Limited RID and for all UAS equipped for Standard RID
(even if operated within parameters that would otherwise permit
Limited RID).
UA
Unmanned Aircraft. Typically a military or commercial "drone" but
can include any and all aircraft that are unmanned.
UAS
Unmanned Aircraft System. Composed of UA, all required on-board
subsystems, payload, control station, other required off-board
subsystems, any required launch and recovery equipment, all
required crew members, and C2 links between UA and control
station.
UAS ID
Unique UAS identifier. Per [F3411-19], maximum length of 20
bytes.
UAS ID Type
Identifier type index. Per [F3411-19], 4 bits, values 0-3 already
specified.
UAS RID
UAS Remote Identification. System for identifying UA during
flight by other parties.
UAS RID Verification Service
System component designed to handle the authentication
requirements of RID by offloading verification to a web hosted
service.
USS
UAS Service Supplier. Provide UTM services to support the UAS
community, to connect Operators and other entities to enable
information flow across the USS network, and to promote shared
situational awareness among UTM participants. (From FAA UTM
ConOps V1, May 2018).
UTM
UAS Traffic Management. A "traffic management" ecosystem for
"uncontrolled" UAS operations separate from, but complementary to,
the FAA's Air Traffic Management (ATM) system for "controlled"
operations of manned aircraft.
Card, et al. Expires 25 September 2020 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft DRIP Reqs March 2020
V-LOS
Visual LOS. Typically used in describing operation of an UA by a
"remote" pilot who can clearly directly (without video cameras or
any other aids other than glasses or under some rules binoculars)
see the UA and its immediate flight environment. Potentially
subject to blockage by foliage, structures, terrain or other
vehicles, more so than RF-LOS.
3. UAS RID Problem Space
UA may be fixed wing Short Take-Off and Landing (STOL), rotary wing
(e.g. helicopter) Vertical Take-Off and Landing (VTOL), or hybrid.
They may be single engine or multi engine. The most common today are
multicopters: rotary wing, multi engine. The explosion in UAS was
enabled by hobbyist development, for multicopters, of advanced flight
stability algorithms, enabling even inexperienced pilots to take off,
fly to a location of interest, hover, and return to the take-off
location or land at a distance. UAS can be remotely piloted by a
human (e.g. with a joystick) or programmed to proceed from Global
Positioning System (GPS) waypoint to waypoint in a weak form of
autonomy; stronger autonomy is coming. UA are "low observable": they
typically have a small radar cross section; they make noise quite
noticeable at short range but difficult to detect at distances they
can quickly close (500 meters in under 17 seconds at 60 knots); they
typically fly at low altitudes (for the small UAS to which RID
applies in the US, under 400 feet AGL); they are highly maneuverable
so can fly under trees and between buildings.
UA can carry payloads including sensors, cyber and kinetic weapons,
or can be used themselves as weapons by flying them into targets.
They can be flown by clueless, careless or criminal operators. Thus
the most basic function of UAS RID is "Identification Friend or Foe"
(IFF) to mitigate the significant threat they present. Numerous
other applications can be enabled or facilitated by RID: consider the
importance of identifiers in many Internet protocols and services.
Network RID from the UA itself (rather than from its GCS) and
Broadcast RID require one or more wireless data links from the UA,
but such communications are challenging due to $SWaP constraints and
low altitude flight amidst structures and foliage over terrain.
3.1. Network RID
Network RID has several variants. The UA may have persistent onboard
Internet connectivity, in which case it can consistently source RID
information directly over the Internet. The UA may have intermittent
onboard Internet connectivity, in which case the GCS must source RID
information whenever the UA itself is offline. The UA may not have
Card, et al. Expires 25 September 2020 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft DRIP Reqs March 2020
Internet connectivity of its own, but have instead some other form of
communications to another node that can relay RID information to the
Internet; this would typically be the GCS (which to perform its
function must know where the UA is). The UA may have no means of
sourcing RID information, in which case the GCS must source it; this
is typical in FAA NPRM Limited RID, which only needs to provide the
location of the GCS (not that of the UA). In the extreme case, this
could be the pilot using a web browser to designate, to an UAS
Service Supplier (USS) or other UTM entity, a time-bounded airspace
volume in which an operation will be conducted; this may impede
disambiguation of ID if multiple UAS operate in the same or
overlapping spatio-temporal volumes.
In most cases in the near term, if the RID information is fed to the
Internet directly by the UA or GCS, the first hop data links will be
cellular Long Term Evolution (LTE) or WiFi, but provided the data
link can support at least IP and ideally TCP, its type is generally
immaterial to the higher layer protocols. An UAS or other ultimate
source of Network RID information feeds an USS acting as a Network
RID Service Provider (NETSP), which essentially proxies for that and
other sources; an observer or other ultimate consumer of Network RID
information obtains it from a Network RID Display Provider (NETDP),
which aggregates information from multiple NETSPs to offer coverage
of an airspace volume of interest.
Network RID is the more flexible and less constrained of the defined
UAS RID means, but is only partially specified in [F3411-19]. It is
presumed that IETF efforts supporting Broadcast RID (see next
section) can be easily generalized for Network RID.
3.2. Broadcast RID
[F3411-19] specifies 3 Broadcast RID data links: Bluetooth 4.X;
Bluetooth 5.X Long Range; and WiFi with Neighbor Awareness Networking
(NAN). For compliance with this standard, an UA must broadcast
(using advertisement mechanisms where no other option supports
broadcast) on at least one of these; if broadcasting on Bluetooth
5.x, it is also required concurrently to do so on 4.x (referred to in
[F3411-19] as Bluetooth Legacy).
The selection of the Broadcast media was driven by research into what
is commonly available on 'ground' units (smartphones and tablets) and
what was found as prevalent or 'affordable' in UA. Further, there
must be an Application Programming Interface (API) for the observer's
receiving application to have access to these messages. As yet only
Bluetooth 4.X support is readily available, thus the current focus is
on working within the 26 byte limit of the Bluetooth 4.X "Broadcast
Frame" transmitted on beacon channels.
Card, et al. Expires 25 September 2020 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft DRIP Reqs March 2020
Finally, the 26 byte limit of the Bluetooth 4.1 "Broadcast Frame",
after nominal overheads, limits the UAS ID string to a maximum length
of 20 bytes.
3.3. DRIP Focus
DRIP WG will focus on making information obtained via UAS RID
immediately usable:
1. first by making it trustworthy (despite the severe constraints of
Broadcast RID);
2. second by enabling verification that an UAS is registered, and if
so, in which registry (for classification of trusted operators on
the basis of known registry vetting, even by observers lacking
Internet connectivity at observation time);
3. third by enabling instant establishment, by authorized parties,
of secure communications with the remote pilot.
Any UA can assert any ID using the [F3411-19] required Basic ID
message, which lacks any provisions for verification. The Position/
Vector message likewise lacks provisions for verification, and does
not contain the ID, so must be correlated somehow with a Basic ID
message: the developers of [F3411-19] have suggested using the MAC
addresses, but these may be randomized by the operating system stack
to avoid the adversarial correlation problems of static identifiers.
The [F3411-19] optional Authentication Message specifies framing for
authentication data, but does not specify any authentication method,
and the maximum length of the specified framing is too short for
conventional digital signatures, much less certificates. The one-way
nature of Broadcast RID precludes challenge-response security
protocols (e.g. observers sending nonces to UA, to be returned in
signed messages). An observer would be seriously challenged to
validate the asserted UAS ID or any other information about the UAS
or its operator looked up therefrom.
Further, [F3411-19] provides very limited choices for an observer to
communicate with the pilot, e.g. to request further information on
the UAS operation or exit from an airspace volume in an emergency.
An observer could physically go to the asserted GCS location to look
for the remote pilot. An observer with Internet connectivity could
look up operator PII in a registry, then call a phone number in hopes
someone who can immediately influence the UAS operation will answer
promptly during that operation.
Thus complementing [F3411-19] with protocols enabling strong
authentication, preserving operator privacy while enabling immediate
Card, et al. Expires 25 September 2020 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft DRIP Reqs March 2020
use of information by authorized parties, is critical to achieve
widespread adoption of a RID system supporting safe and secure
operation of UAS.
4. Requirements
4.1. General
The general DRIP requirements are to:
1. verify that messages originated from the claimed sender;
2. verify that the UAS ID is in a registry and identify which one;
3. lookup, from the UAS ID, public information;
4. lookup, with AAA, private information, per policy;
5. structure information for both human and machine readability;
6. provision registries with static information on the UAS and its
operator, dynamic information on its current operation within the
UTM, and Internet direct contact information for services related
to the foregoing;
7. close the AAA-policy registry loop by governing AAA per
registered policies and administering policies only via AAA;
8. dynamically establish, with AAA, per policy, E2E strongly
encrypted communications with the UAS RID sender and entities
looked up from the UAS ID, including the remote pilot and USS.
It is highly desirable that Broadcast RID receivers be able to stamp
messages with accurate date/time received and receiver location, then
relay them to a network service (e.g. distributed ledger), inter alia
for correlation to assess sender and receiver veracity.
4.2. UAS Identifier
A DRIP UAS ID MUST be:
1. 20 bytes or smaller;
2. sufficient to identify a registry in which the UAS is listed;
3. sufficient to enable lookup of other data in that registry;
4. unique within a to-be-defined scope;
Card, et al. Expires 25 September 2020 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft DRIP Reqs March 2020
5. non-spoofable within the context of Remote ID broadcast messages
(some collection of messages provides proof of UA ownership of
ID).
A DRIP UAS ID MUST NOT facilitate adversarial correlation of UAS
operational patterns; this may be accomplished e.g. by limiting each
identifier to a single use, but if so, the UAS ID MUST support
defined scalable timely registration methods.
Mechanisms standardized in DRIP WG MUST be capable of proving
ownership of a claimed UAS ID, and SHOULD be capable of doing so
immediately on an observer device lacking Internet connectivity at
the time of observation.
Mechanisms standardized in DRIP WG MUST be capable of verifying that
messages claiming to have been sent from a UAS with a given UAS ID
indeed came from the claimed sender.
5. IANA Considerations
It is likely that an IPv6 prefix or other namespace will be needed;
this will be specified in other documents.
6. Security Considerations
DRIP is all about safety and security, so content pertaining to such
is not limited to this section. DRIP information must be divided
into 2 classes: that which, to achieve the purpose, must be published
openly in clear plaintext, for the benefit of any observer; and that
which must be protected (e.g. PII of pilots) but made available to
properly authorized parties (e.g. public safety personnel who
urgently need to contact pilots in emergencies). Details of the
protection mechanisms will be provided in other documents.
Classifying the information will be addressed primarily in external
standards; herein it will be regarded as a matter for CAA, registry
and operator policies, for which enforcement mechanisms will be
defined within the scope of DRIP WG and offered. Mitigation of
adversarial correlation will also be addressed.
7. Acknowledgments
The work of the FAA's UAS Identification and Tracking (UAS ID)
Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) is the foundation of later ASTM
[F3411-19] and IETF DRIP WG efforts. The work of ASTM F38.02 in
balancing the interests of diverse stakeholders is essential to the
necessary rapid and widespread deployment of UAS RID.
8. References
Card, et al. Expires 25 September 2020 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft DRIP Reqs March 2020
8.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
8.2. Informative References
[CTA2063A] ANSI, "Small Unmanned Aerial Systems Serial Numbers",
September 2019.
[Delegated]
European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), "Commission
Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/945 of 12 March 2019 on
unmanned aircraft systems and on third-country operators
of unmanned aircraft systems", March 2019.
[F3411-19] ASTM, "Standard Specification for Remote ID and Tracking",
December 2019.
[Implementing]
European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), "Commission
Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/947 of 24 May 2019 on
the rules and procedures for the operation of unmanned
aircraft", May 2019.
[NPRM] United States Federal Aviation Administration (FAA),
"Notice of Proposed Rule Making on Remote Identification
of Unmanned Aircraft Systems", December 2019.
[Recommendations]
FAA UAS Identification and Tracking Aviation Rulemaking
Committee, "UAS ID and Tracking ARC Recommendations Final
Report", September 2017.
[RFC4122] Leach, P., Mealling, M., and R. Salz, "A Universally
Unique IDentifier (UUID) URN Namespace", RFC 4122,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4122, July 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4122>.
Authors' Addresses
Card, et al. Expires 25 September 2020 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft DRIP Reqs March 2020
Stuart W. Card
AX Enterprize
4947 Commercial Drive
Yorkville, NY 13495
United States of America
Email: stu.card@axenterprize.com
Adam Wiethuechter
AX Enterprize
4947 Commercial Drive
Yorkville, NY 13495
United States of America
Email: adam.wiethuechter@axenterprize.com
Robert Moskowitz
HTT Consulting
Oak Park, MI 48237
United States of America
Email: rgm@labs.htt-consult.com
Card, et al. Expires 25 September 2020 [Page 14]