================================================================  
 Drone Remote ID Protocol (drip)  
 Meeting Agenda  
 Tue, March 28, 2023  
 Co-Chairs: Daniel Migault & Mohamed Boucadair

================================================================

*   Note well, logistics, and introduction  
    Med opened the meeting at 14:31 local time,  
    displaying the Note Well.
*   Agenda Bashing (5 min)  
    Med reviewed the agenda.
*   Documents Status (5 min)  
    AD Eric V. ensured we had a note taker.  
    Med thanked the authors, reviewers, editors & Eric V.
*   Report IANA Discussion (Stu, 5 min)  
    Number of things outside world since 115  
    ANRA building CS-RID with contract with FAA  
    ASTM A2X security framework  
    Carrying flag ion A2X framework for DRIP  
    ANSI gap report for standard documents for UAS  
    "uncrewed" not "unmanned" ... yay  
    stay with "unmanned" then switch  
    field test interop of rid  
    DRIP @ ICAO  
    MOC back burner till all docs  
    DRIP showing off to FAA next week  
    US agencies deploying  
    need more participants outside US  
    registry arch is WG, individual techs are not  
    need round is stuff to do useful things  
    ICAO wants Observer from IETF in TFP  
    ASTM wants ICAO as RID registrar  
    Good news (unofficial), ICAO is "days away" for this  
    Talks with IANA as a backfill, ready to approach ASTM for this  
    IANA unofficially agrees if ASTM asks  
    ghost letter by Stu for this purpose  
    Jim Reid: Observer from ietf - representing, as a body or what we
    doing in this space? what does it entail?  
    TFP for entire aviation, some exerpt in IETF in broad trust issues
    of networking; need a volunteer from IAB  
    Eric: nobody speaks other than together, IAB liason. just to be
    clear  
    For ICAO they want an SME as non-voting member  
    Bob: came up today, PQC for PKI. Discussion in this area. They want
    input. trust in networking. broader of all ietf, not just drip.
    electronic stuff everywhere...weee. broader discussions that ietf
    has worked for many years to give advice for icao and its 30-year
    time frame.
*   Implementation Updates (Andrei, 10 min)  
    Andrei presented updates on his students'  
    open source implementations of DRIP  
    plus interesting extensions e.g. blockchain.  
    They are actually flying it on Intel NUC w/multi RF links.  
    Formal verification of key pieces is underway.  
    One aspect of HIP BEX has failed.  
    Russ H. suggested IETF (not necessarily DRIP) should fix it.  
    Their open source is on Google Play  
    but must be downloaded via an explicit link  
    as it does not show up in public directories/searches  
    (see Andrei's slides for the link).
*   draft-ietf-drip-auth (Adam, 10 min)  
    Adam summarized status of authentication draft  
    (see ASTM - ICAO - IANA discussion above),  
    alternative ways forward, recent changes (mostly cleanup),  
    and having made it less dependent on hard references  
    to the less mature registry documents.
*   draft-ietf-drip-registries (Adam, 20 min)  
    Adam summarized status of the registry architecture draft.  
    He described how we support not only single use Session IDs  
    but also static manufacturer assigned serial numbers  
    (with 3 methods depending on how the manufacturer plays).  
    While how to handle DETs as such in DNS (.ip6.arpa) is clear,  
    working group debate on DNS handling of SNs is sought.  
    Adam W. & Jim R's suggestion of putting them also in .arpa  
    triggered Russ H. to point out that IAB consultation is next  
    and Kim D. to point out that naming there is typically based  
    not on organizational entities but rather purposes.  
    Jim R. explained we are suggesting ICAO play a role in this  
    similar to the role played by ITU in the enum .arpa space.  
    Bob M. assured us that discussions with high level ICAO  
    people were ongoing and friendly.  
    Adam explained the logic behind the proposed new RR type,  
    which basically was to avoid the costs of extra recursion.  
    Peter Koch (in chat) expressed concern/confusion.  
    Toerless E. suggested we talk w/DNS experts first and  
    if the new RR type is problematic use TXT RRs.  
    Jim R. assured us the new process for new RR types is fast  
    and that almost all deployed software is well behaved  
    when it encounters an unknown RR type.  
    Eric V. reminded us to request an early DNS DIR review.  
    Bob M. explained the justification for harmonizing DRIP  
    endorsements with ICAO's use of X.509.  
    Jim R. extended the ITU precedent with the need to delegate  
    to national authorities (here, likely CAAs), suggesting  
    ICAO knows how to do that.  
    Adam explained attempt at cleaning up registry arch doc.  
    Stu attempted to connect some dots among DRIP, X.509,  
    post quantum, etc.  
    Med suggested Adam try to accelerate timeline, esp.  
    DNS DIR review; Jim R. said go ahead, send then a draft now.  
    Med suggest Adam highlight the proposal for a new RR type,  
    then send it, then we have some interim meetings.
*   Misc. (5 min)  
    Med solicited any final words then closed the meeting.