Minutes interim-2020-drip-02: Wed 11:00
minutes-interim-2020-drip-02-202005271100-00

        Drone Remote ID Protocol (drip)
        Virtual Interim Meeting Agenda

Wed   2020-05-27 15:00 to 16:00 UTC

Co-Chairs: Daniel Migault & Mohamed Boucadair

*** Logistics **********************************

- Webex:
https://ietf.webex.com/ietf/j.php?MTID=m55592b255b3106bfd11854d9be550754 -
Etherpad: https://etherpad.ietf.org:9009/p/notes-ietf-interim-2020-drip-02-drip
- Slides:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/interim-2020-drip-02/session/drip - jabber
xmpp:drip@jabber.ietf.org

**** Agenda ************************************

1. Note well, logistics and introduction  [Chairs]       5 min

Chair slides, note well, details.
ANSI UAS people are happy with what is going on.
Registration Operations Workshop will have session and expects title of
presentation due tomorrow. June 16 day. regiops.net Med to send the information
to Eric (AD) about their invitation to present DNS privacy extensions. The
information can be handed to dprive WG chairs, for example.

2. Requirements Discussion               [Stuart]      30 min
- draft-ietf-drip-reqs               15 min
- Discussion                         15 min

req slides (Stu card)
gen2 binding between various broadcast messages (such as location) to the id
message multicast is listed as SHOULD, some say MUST (gen-10)

Eric: similar requirements since last time, are they the same?
Stu: these seem to be the previous slides!
Goes to summary changes since April 22.  Many updates and fixes.

new ID req (#6) for unlinkability along with some explanatory textabout how
agreement of what an identifier is under privacy storage reqs go a bit beyond
where IETF normally roams

Bob: attempts to capture attention in his operator-privacy draft and requests
comments! Daniel: privacy is not a general concept (?) Stu: scoping from whom
and under what circumstances

New REG requirements moving from under general

Med: avoid pointing to other documents and not point to solutions. Need to do a
little bit more to remove the pointers

3. Architecture Discussion                [Stuart]      15 min
    - draft-ietf-drip-arch                5 min
    - Discussion                         10 min

Need to do: what is an operator vs pilot in command vs ???
Wants to use ICAO definitions

Needs a correction to fix DP/SP labels

Philip Hall: on registry are assuming who owns them?
Stu: trying to stay generic to what FAA/EASA are doing buisness. two classes;
one from public another via access control. USS will provide some form of
registry Philip: depends on who owns and manages the registry to handle the
privacy issue Stu: FAA thinking is still on past (few aircraft and operators)
so been trying to address scalability

Presumed Transactions: might not be complete

Shuaii: has anyone been talking to entity in USS buisness? this cuts into their
buisness Stu: point to standards to standardize Shuaii: ??? Stu: have DSS and
inter-USS is well defined Shuaii: anything proposed via USS we will get strong
push back from them on creating standards in the area Stu: if we can't say
anything on USS then we can't say anything on anything Shuaii: no one currently
on call tht is USS vendors, Airbus was present at least on last call Bob: all
we can do is hold out a helping hand Stu: ANSPs, most USS providers are trying
to be the "one ring to rule them all"

Not clear how to describe arch without going into our solution?

Daniel: certificate formats from V2V?
Bob: they have large message frames to work in 802.11ocb, fairly regular x.509s
are possible - so its a non-starter in this arena

Shuaii: HIP is a really good solution for the RID. Still no solution on how to
design the remote ids. Daniel: 3gpp is in favor of HIP solution? Shuaii: no
strong favor or agreement - but no solution becuase there is no standard Stu:
best news all month!

Confirm definitions (most are what Stu has written) so need to align with other
bodies Plural forms Need to focus on registration CS-RID, Observer to Pilot
comms?

Eric: that might not fit the DRIP charter! (Oberver to pilot coms)
Bob: agreed
DaSilva: what is context? in civil aviation this is not allowed
Stu: not world of airtraffic control, [unmanned] traffic management. often
necessary to talk to pilot to get them to move. RID alone can put you within a
class but does not enable immediate actionability of the trusted information
obtained. Air defense operator to contact before shooting down. DaSilva:
understand where you are coming from. UTM will interact with ATM. This goes
beyond principles currently in aviation. Must avoid a wild west scenario. Stu:
this is Gen-6. Not just anybody (Joe six pack) can do this. extrapolate from
traditional approach. Philip: what would be helpful, try to develop practical
envirorment where these comms would occur (along with use-cases). invest time
in scenarios/use-cases to support things? Stu: not in position to get into O2P
other than use-cases to justify Philip: use-cases to identify the situations
where it works and where it doesnt and if they are worth it

Daniel: when we talk to comms; direct to pilot or just a message?
Stu: not worrying about it (due to HIP benefits)
Daniel: there might be different types
Shuaii: helpful to talk between aircraft in the last 5 years without ATC
involvement. same came be applied with UAS. charter is leveraging existing
protocols and this does fit?

Adam: keep in mind USS mediates information to enable O2P, another encrochment
on their space Shauii: doesnt require uss involvement?

Med: focus on reqs and arch in the first by june/july for some stablity. there
are other items to be discussed but we must focus on what we are to deliver.
longer slot in 108. but same space for next June meeting. mailing list and
share to make versions that are stable. Reqs is on good track, arch needs more
focus.

4. Open Mic                                              5 min

5. Closing                               [Chairs]        5 min

Good discussion. Sent a request for a session during next meeting (end of
July). No idea how it will be handled due to being virtual. communicate to
other organizations.

Shuaii: wondering what is the milestone?
Med: The plan we agreed during our first meeting is to be aggressive to have
stable versions and WGLC by end of July. Shauii: important to ignite other
works! Med: we feel ahead of others on this topic so getting something out that
others look to.

Bob: ANSI roadmap gaps are important to look at!
Adam: concurr!