================================================== Drone Remote ID Protocol (drip) IETF#115 Meeting Agenda 2022-11-10 WG Chairs: Daniel Migault & Mohamed Boucadair Minutes: Stu Card ================================================== # Note well, logistics, and introduction Daniel kicked off the meeting at the appointed time in the usual way. He reported on the status of all WG-adopted drafts. Bob M. also has a related draft progressing in another WG (ipsecme - being moved by Roman as sponsoring AD). Med solicited reviews! Daniel reviewed milestone status and highlighted urgency of completing the basic DRIP document set by the end of 2022. Eric V. as INT AD spoke. He stated we need another IETF LC on the architecture draft given 2 signficant changes (use of blockchain in addition to DNS in section 4.2.3 and replacing DNS over TLS by DNSSEC). RID has also a minor issue to fix in section 5 (reverse names are non canonical and could have collisions -- no need for IETF last call). He suggested packaging several drafts together for IESG reviews to simplify the reviewers' job. Med spoke on the idea of breaking the WG-adopted Registries draft into multiple docs: one describing the registry architecture and required information elements; each of the other N describing an implementation using a specific technology. # ASTM/ICAO Contacts (Stu/Chairs/AD) (focus on SAM Codepoints) Talk about things external to IETF and drive/interact with DRIP work. 3 - regulators, SDOs and early adopters. Interactions with regulators. F3411-22a with explicit mention of DRIP. F3586 Means of Compliance (for US only) specifying how it works for FAA. FAA good minus for some additions. Declarations of Compliance in Sept. 2022 for FAA. Oct. 2022 agreed with auth which is what DRIP is doing. Need help with EU side of UA. May need a Means of Compliance Addendum - where does this live in DRIP? Urgent needs are pushing code development and deployment. DTN WG looking at HHIT, and US agencies are field trialing stuff. The WG wants Points of Contact for DRIP efforts into other SDOs (ASTM/ICAO). ASTM wants ICAO as registrar for ID types and SAM type codepoints. No process yet for DRIP to get them. ASTM in legal review for official confirmation of ICAO codepoints. Eric: IAB is in charge of all liaisons, and IESG makes sure checks are done. Its really only an email, no need to have heavy process. Med: send to chairs - we have direct contact and no responses? No codepoints = no send to AD. Jim Reid: valid. no need formal liason, perhaps SME. Lets not get too tied down. Eric: Laison manager, not case here. just statement and email kept forever on the liaison web page. Dan: not trying to build something heavy. just agreement that we will get codepoints. no responses from them. Jim: not speaking for or representing just advising and happens to be at ietf. # Active Solution Documents ## DRIP Authentication Formats (Adam) (draft-ietf-drip-auth) * WGLC Status Adam elaborated slightly on the process to obtain SAM codes. Reported that he will address the pending issues from Med. He will upload draft 27 in a few days. Hackathon interoperability tests w/Linkoping made progress and are continuing this week. 2 new Hackathon volunteers Filip D & Marius K implemented an endorsement tool that successfully interoperated w/Adam's code and is available as open source. ## DRIP Registries (Adam) (draft-ietf-drip-registries) * Status & Next Steps Adam described the proposed split of Registries into many drafts: one illustrating the registry architecture and describing all required information elements; one each specifying usage of DNS, EPP, RDAP and HTTPS methods. -detim-arch most fundamental to doing the other drafts -dia-http most mature -registry-http -dia-rdap -registry-epp Do any of these (other than the 1st) belong in other WGs? Adam identified open issues: DNS apex crypto key management support of serial numbers for non-DRIP-users translating DRIP endorsements into CDDL Bob M. suggested we might want to avoid over-specifying information elements in -detim-arch. Jim R. expressed approval of the doc split and preference for designing any DRIP specific EPP extension here in DRIP WG. Eric V. as AD concurred w/Jim R. on both points, added that we should extend the WGLC on DRIP specific EPP extensions to the regext WG. Med as chair indicated intent to consider adoption initially only of -detim-arch and getting that solid before considering any of the implementation technology specific drafts. AJ Beal of the Naval Postgraduate School inquired on frequencies; Adam & Stu answered that the requirement from the FAA was for license free spectrum and data links supported on ubiquitous consumer devices, refined by ASTM to specific initial choices to which others can be added later. # DRIP Implementations * Andrei * Adam Andrei presented his students' experiments with their open source implementations and interoperability w/Adam's code. There is support for both registration and Broadcast/Direct RID transmission/reception. Observer application is based on OpenDroneID and Open Street Maps. Bluetooth device drivers have been challenging. Google Play release coming very soon. Both ARM and x86 archictures are targeted. His group has demonstrated with live flights. They are undertaking formal analysis of DRIP using Tamarin. They are also updating their related OpenHIP codebase to support newer crypto libraries, the new crypto in DRIP and NAT traversal. Andrei answered several questions from Stu and the chairs. # Open Mic & Closing Med invited questions and comments, got none, closed the meeting.