>                Drone Remote ID Protocol (drip)
>                    Interim Meeting Agenda
>                      Wed, March 01, 2023
>          Co-Chairs: Daniel Migault & Mohamed Boucadair
>                      Minutes: Stu Card 

# Agenda Bashing (5 min)   {#agenda-bashing-5-min}

Co-chair Med opened meeting at 11:05 EST.  
No agenda issues were raised.  
AD Eric reminded us all of the IETF note well.

# Documents Status (5 min)   {#documents-status-5-min}

# draft-ietf-drip-rid   {#draft-ietf-drip-rid}

Bob reported progressing rapidly in AUTH48.

# draft-ietf-drip-arch   {#draft-ietf-drip-arch}

Eric raised an issue about US FAA specific text regarding USA-operated
GPS as a time source in section 8.5.  
Jim raised a further issue that the 32-bit Unix style time stamp will
wrap around in a few years.  
Adam pointed out that it is an ASTM F3411 specified "Unix-style" time
stamp with a different offset that will wrap around years later than the
true Unix time stamp.  
Adam also reminded everyone that ASTM F3586 is a Means of Compliance to
FAA which is US specific, so should be treated as an example, and we
should so indicate.  
Med (w/chair hat off) concurred with marking the text as an example to
show how the timing requirements in different jurisdictions might apply
and will propose revised text.  
Eric agreed that using a 'for example' would be enough to address his
concern  
Saulo offered ICAO data on GNSS timing.

# draft-ietf-drip-auth (15 min)   {#draft-ietf-drip-auth-15-min}

Adam reported on related work in ASTM A2X group.  
He reported on the ICAO/ASTM SAM codepoint delay.  
Eric (AD hat off) suggested a possible approach: getting a small subset
of SAM code-points to IANA from ASTM (a liaison statement being probably
enough, a MoU would be better)  
Adam explained ASTM F3411 RFC8126-based process for 'expert review'.  
Eric pointed out there is precedent for IANA serving as a registrar for
other (non-IETF) SDOs.  
Saulo explained that the ICAO delay is a required consultation with
their attorneys.  
Consensus appeared to be that we continue to wait and hope, at least
until the next IETF meeting, but that we think about a Plan B just in
case.  
Adam reminded everyone we have open issues, most notably the term
"pseudo-blockchain" and asked that everyone review those issues and
suggest text to address them (see
https://github.com/ietf-wg-drip/draft-ietf-drip-auth/issues/29).

# draft-ietf-drip-registries (30 min)   {#draft-ietf-drip-registries-30-min}

# Misc. (5 min)   {#misc-5-min}

There was discussion of the IPv6 prefix for DRIP, its ownership,
management, etc. The consensus seemed to be that ICAO is the proper apex
(just below the ultimate IANA root) and that delegation to nation states
is the only way to get CAAs to buy in. Jim suggested that we focus on
IPv6 not DNS, and the latter will just naturally follow w/o needing to
involve ICANN (beyond their IANA function).  
There was nonetheless discussion of structure of names in DNS. There are
several seemingly good options on the table, including NAPTR for max
flexibility. Impact on -rid now in AUTH48 was emphasized as urgent. Adam
is leaning heavily on Jim in both the IPv6 and the DNS views of DRIP
registry functions supporting UAS RID.

Adam repeated his plea for everyone to look at issues on -auth and
-registries in GitHub.

Med emphasized the need for max progress between now and next IETF
meeting so issues can be closed.

Co-chair Med closed the meeting at 17:05 UTC with a suggestion for
possibly more interims.