►
From YouTube: IETF107-DRIP-20200325-1947
Description
DRIP meeting session at IETF 107
2020/03/25 1947
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/107/proceedings
A
A
So
I
think
everyone
can
see
my
slides
just
a
few
few
advice.
Recommendations
I
think
there
already
been
provided
by
on
the
procession
slide
so
make
sure
your
video
is
off
you
to
come
to
the
mic
and
unless
you
are
talking
yeah,
the
the
chat
on
the
WebEx
is
gonna
be
mostly
used
for
for
the
queue
to
manage
the
queue.
So
you
will
add
a
plus
Q
if
you
want
to
be
in
that
queue
and
a
minus
Q.
If
you
want
to
remove
from
that
queue
on
the
chat,
you
can
see
the
enter
pod.
A
So
that's
what
we
use
for
the
blue
sheets
so
make
sure
you
put
your
names
and
affiliations
to
that.
It's
a
pad!
The
link
is
on
the
link
is
on
the
on
the
chat
check
that
but
I
think
you
probably
can
check
that
on
the
site.
So
any
discussions
that
are
going
to
be
outside
I
mean
during
the
conference
during
the
meeting
should
not
be
in
the
chat
of
the
WebEx,
but
rather
in
the
jabber
room.
A
A
B
A
Okay,
thank
you
Michael,
so
the
agenda
is
going
to
be
mostly
focused
on
them
on
two
drafts
that
are
currently
working
progress.
One
is
based
on
the
requirement
and
the
other
one
on
the
architecture.
So
that's
really
much.
We
would
like
to
have
this
session
being
focused
on
then.
There
are
also
some
ongoing
works
that
are
more
in
the
solution
space,
but
we
would
like
to.
We
only
would
like
to
have
those
presentations
if
time
permits
so
the
working
group.
A
How
do
we
work
now,
so
we
have
two
chairs
myself
and
Matt
I'm,
so
welcome
Matt,
and
we
also
like
to
thank
Gonzalo
for
launching
the
working
group.
So
the
name
with
the
working
group
has
a
new
name,
so
it
used
to
be
called
DM
or
ID.
So
now,
when
you're
updating
the
draft
just
make
sure
you're
using
the
appropriate
cranium.
A
Another
thing:
it's
it's
expected
to
be
work.
A
working
group
that
is
making
is
gonna,
be
working
with
virtual
meetings
and
interim
meetings,
so
we're
gonna
set
a
doodle
and
we
would
like
to
understand
what
what
are
the
time
zone
preference,
so
I'm
based
in
Montreal,
so
eastern
coast
and
my
co-chair
is
located
in
Europe.
A
A
If
you're
also
willing
to
co-author
a
document,
it
would
be
really
appreciated
that
you
can
I
mean
you
could
even
either
contact
directly
the
authors,
the
co-authors,
I'm
sure
they're
gonna
be
very
welcoming
that,
but
I
mean,
if
you,
you
don't
feel
at
ease,
contacting
those
the
co-authors
directly.
A
Please
feel
feel
free
to
contact
the
chairs
and
we
will
try
to
to
make
that
happen.
One
of
the
reason
we
would
like
not
everyone
is
might
come
from
the
ITF,
so
I
mean
we
would
like
to
make
this
adjustment
so
I
mean
the
chairs
are
here
to
make
the
work
happen,
so
you
should
feel
really
free
to
contact
us
at
any
time
and
if
you're
sending
us
an
email-
and
you
don't
receive
a
response
within-
let's
say
24
hours
present
the
email.
A
It's
probably
that
we
have
missed
the
email
rather
than
we
don't
want
to
answer
it,
the
use
of
github.
So
if
authors
are
confident
with
using
github,
we
are
fine
with
that.
So
there
are
some
recommendations
here
that
you
may
have
a
look
too,
but
I
mean
no.
We
are
not
pushing
for.
We
are
not
pushing
against.
A
A
So
the
my
stumps.
We
envisioned
our
adoption
in
April
2020
the
requirements
and
their
architecture
documents,
and
we
would
like
those
documents
to
be
finalized
during
your
working
group
like
last
call
for
July
2020,
it
doesn't
mean
the
other
word
can't
start
in
parallel,
but
we
would
like
the
working
group
to
be
focused
on
those
two
and
we
don't
want
to
spend
too
much
time
on
the
studio
acumen.
B
A
D
Recommendations
for
the
Secretariat
have
been
to
have.
The
chairs
continue
to
actually
drive
the
slides
and
for
this
became
the
same
next.
So
that's
what
I'll
do
I'm
paying
alright.
So
while
you
do
that,
I'll
start
talking,
though,
since
this
is
the
first
meeting
of
the
working
group
and
we
have
some
new
participants-
and
there
is
indeed
significant
background
and
context
from
the
unmanned
aircraft
system
world
that
a
little
of
that
is
needed
to
understand.
What's
going
on,
I'll
go
through
some
of
that
which
means
I'm.
D
C
D
A
little
bit
there,
we
go
I
apologize
for
this
first
one,
but
it's
necessary.
It's
not
necessary
for
us
to
walk
through
the
wall
right
now,
but
I'm
hoping
people
will
look
at
these
slides
again
after
today's
meeting
this
alphabet
soup
is
necessary
in
order
to
understand,
what's
going
on
in
in
the
drone
world.
There's
only
two
things
that
I
want
to
highlight
right
now:
the
unmanned
aircraft,
the
UA,
is
the
physical
drone
itself.
It's
the
part
that
takes
off
the
GCS.
D
The
other
thing
I
want
to
point
out
is
that
very
central
to
all
of
this
is
what's
called
the
USS,
the
UAS
service
supplier,
which
you
can
think
of
it
as
a
service
bureau
that
offers
a
collection
of
services
that
relate
to
the
safe
and
economical
plight
of
unmanned
aircraft
and
there's
a
lot
of
different
information
services
involved
that
that
support
that
next,
okay,
remote
ID,
is
critical
for
integrating
these
things
into
the
controlled
national
airspace
and
flying
them
below
400
feet.
That's
here
in
the
you
ask
me,
different
numbers
may
apply
in
other
jurisdictions.
D
Let's
say
that
I'm,
a
fireman
and
I'm
in
a
fire
and
I
see
this
aircraft
hovering
over
the
fire.
I,
don't
know
whether
that
was
brought
by
some
other
Department
that
responded
to
the
same
fire
or
if
it's
one
of
the
local
news
media
or
at
some
Kocher,
or
maybe
it's
the
arsonist
who
set
the
fire.
I,
really
need
to
find
out
some
information
about
that
aircraft
and
who's
flying
it.
And
why
and
to
start
I
need
to
simply
identify
the
aircraft
there's
a
lot
of
different
stakeholders.
D
If
you
will
that
need
this
or
a
lot
of
different
reasons
and
there's
a
kind
of
a
loop
here
in
that
there's
information
that
people
are
going
to
act
upon,
they
need
to
be
able
to
trust
that
information
trust
begins
with
identity.
So
then
the
identity
itself
needs
to
be
trusted.
Next
Daniel,
before
you.
D
D
Okay,
this
is
a
complex
and
rapidly
changing
environment.
All
all
of
the
pieces
are
in
at
best
useful
development,
even
within
the
Federal
Aviation
Administration,
which
is
the
Civil
Aviation
Authority
in
the
States
there's
different
branches
of
the
FAA
that
are
using
different
nomenclature
and
going
in
different
directions.
And
so
then,
when
you
add
that
this
is
actually
a
global
problem,
it
gets
worse.
D
We've
got
a
lot
of
things
in
the
UAS
traffic
management
world
that
our
movie
fast
and
disjointedly,
and
then
trust
frameworks.
Those
are
still
being
defined
and
the
major
effort
in
that
area
is
coming
from
the
International
Civil
Aviation
Organization,
which
has
come
up
with
well,
which
is
developing
their
ICAO
trust
framework
and
their
global
resilient
aviation,
interoperable
Network
and
we're
gonna
try
to
hook
up
with
those
people
and
then
there's
on
beyond
UTM,
which
is
unmanned
aircraft
system
traffic
management.
D
There
are
a
lot
of
people
who
are
saying
that
UTM
is
the
future
of
atm
air
traffic
management,
in
other
words
manned
aircraft
as
well,
because
we
are
confronting
problems
of
scalability
in
UTM
that
are
soon
going
to
be
encountered
in
manned
aviation
due
to
the
introduction
of,
what's
being
called
urban
air
mobility
thing,
robotic
air
taxis
flying
around
in
dense
urban
areas.
Next,
ok,
so
again,
this
is
the
u.s.
centric
view
of
the
world,
but
there
are
corresponding
things
going
on
in
Europe
and
elsewhere.
This
is
the
UTM
pilot
project
to
architecture.
D
If
you
look
on
the
right-hand
side
towards
the
center
vertically,
there
is
the
UAS
supplier,
the
u-s-s,
and
you
can
see
the
central
role
that
it
plays
in
all
this.
There
will
be
multiple
UAS
s,
I'm,
sorry,
you
SSE's
interacting
in
a
so-called
inter
USS
network.
Each
one
of
those
USS
is
will
be
supporting
multiple
UAS
operators
and
except
for
hobbyists,
each
one
of
those
UAS
operators
will
typically
be
running
multiple
UAS.
So
we
do
face
a
lot
of
scalability
issues
here.
Next.
D
Next
slide,
if
you
adapt
you,
okay,
so
there's
a
key
standard
here:
the
former
American
Society
for
testing
and
materials,
which
is
not
called
simply
ASTM
International,
published
in
December
their
standard
specification
for
remote,
ID
and
tracking.
This
is
their
first
version.
They
know
that
it's
going
to
need
to
be
revisions.
D
This
is
a
technical
specification,
not
a
regulation.
More
on
that
later,
it's
really
focused
on
message
formats
and
it
introduces
two
types
of
remote,
ID,
broadcast
and
network
broadcast
comes
direct
from
the
actual
flying
aircraft
goes
over
a
dead
link,
not
a
network
to
the
observers
device
directly.
It
has
to
support
bluetooth,
for
it
has
to
support
Wi-Fi.
It
optionally
can
support
Bluetooth
5,
but
anytime
you're
broadcasting.
D
An
between
five
you're
required,
also
can
currently
be
broadcasting
on
new
tooth
4,
and
because
these
are
unpaired
devices,
you
know
you're
not
going
to
pair
each
aircraft
with
each
observers
smartphone
on
the
ground.
That
means
it's
limited
to
using
the
Bluetooth
or
advertisement
frames,
the
beacon
frames
they're.
Very
short,
we
only
get
24
bytes
usable
how
to
each
one
of
them,
and
even
if
you
age
it,
it's
still
not
much.
D
Network
remote
ID,
on
the
other
hand,
uses
the
Internet
explicitly
not
just
IP
connectivity
in
general,
but
it
uses
the
Internet
and
it
involves
a
service
provider
that
gathers
information
from
different
aircraft
in
an
area
and
a
display
provider
which
aggregates
information
from
multiple
service
providers
and
costs
it
up
in
the
form
usable
by
observes
and
it's
JSON
and
Rast,
and
so
on.
The
thing
is
this
standard
punts,
the
security
methods
to
the
implementers
it
specifies
the
framing.
D
It
shows
you
how
many
bytes
you
get
for
authentication
data
and
where
they
go
and
the
message
format
and
that's
where
it
stops.
That's
on
purpose,
because
they
don't
want
to
prevent
taking
advantage
of
advances
in
crypto,
and
they
don't
want
to
over
specify
what
it
means
that
there
is
no
interoperability
yet
from
just
following
this
standard.
That's
one
area
where
we
want
to
help
next
slide,
please!
D
Ok!
This
is
broadcast
remote
ID,
it's
a
very
simple
case.
There's
an
aircraft
in
the
air,
it's
being
controlled
over
a
command
and
control
link,
which
is
typically
two-way
by
somebody
on
the
ground
and
the
aircraft
is
broadcasting
one
way
to
any
observer.
That's
within
range
that
has
loaded
a
broadcast
receiver
app
onto
their
smartphone,
their
tablet
or
whatever
other
receiver
device.
This
one
is
highly
constrained
in
terms
of
range
and
Bluetooth
or
packet
size
and
so
on,
but
it's
simple
very
easy
to
understand
next
slide,
please
so.
D
D
So
I'll
start
talking
on
this
slide.
Well,
this
one
is
Network
remote,
ID
and
I
recommend
that
you
focus
on
the
lower
two-thirds
of
the
slide,
not
the
top.
Third.
The
top
third
is
again
us
FAA
unique.
It
is
how
they
anticipate
that
federal
users,
who
will
have
special
guide
powers,
will
interact
with
the
rest
of
the
system,
whereas
the
bottom
layer
that
you
see
here
is
the
individual
UAS
operators
and
then
the
middle
layer
is
that
the
center
of
the
of
the
UTM
universe
is
the
multiple
US
SS,
the
UAS
service
suppliers.
D
Now
you
notice
that
the
one
in
the
middle
is
receiving
remote,
ID
information
from
the
UAS
--is
that
it
is
working
with,
and
it's
sharing
that
information,
the
net
rid
transmit
service
with
other
new
SSE's.
The
one
on
the
left
is
doing
the
same
thing,
and
it
is
also
providing
Network
RIA
display
service
to
that
guy
over
on
the
left,
who
wants
some
situational
awareness
on
what's
going
on
in
the
air
and
then
the
one
way
over
on
the
right?
That's
not
serving
any
UAS
operators
at
all.
D
It's
serving
some
member
of
the
general
public
that
just
wants
to
know.
What's
that
nasty
buzzing
sound
over
his
head
and
who's
doing
it
next
slide,
please:
okay,
there's
a
difference
here
between
the
regulations
and
the
industry.
Consensus
standards
they're
intended
to
complement
each
other,
the
regulator's,
such
as
the
European
Union,
Aviation,
Safety
Agency
in
the
US
FAA.
D
They
may
be
what
you've
got
to
do
and
how
well
you've
got
it
good,
whereas
STM
and
others
provide
technical
specifications
that
detail
one
or
more
ways
that
you
might
use
and
the
regulators
can
designate
specific
industry
standards,
as
quote
accepted
means
of
compliance.
What
that
means
is,
if
I
buy
my
drone
from
a
manufacturer
who
provides
me
with
to
get
that
asserts
that
he
is
complying
with
ASTM
f34
11
19,
then
neither
I
nor
the
manufacturer
need
to
prove
to
the
FAA
that
we
comply
with
their
regulation.
D
There's
slightly
different
terminology
between
the
regulations
and
the
technical
specifications.
But
then
there
are
some
actual
meaningful
differences.
For
instance,
within
the
ASTM
standard
there
are
three
UAS
ID
types
type.
One
is
a
static
manufacturer
sign
Hardware
circle
number
/,
you
had
another
external
standard
from
the
consumer
technology
Association
in
Europe.
You
are
required
to
use
that
one
in
the
u.s.
you
are
allowed
to
use
that
one
type
two.
Is
your
aviation
regulators
assign
ID,
which
ASTM
thought
that
the
aviation
agencies
were
going
to
want
to
do
this?
D
They
don't
want
to
neither
Europe
nor
the
United
States
allows
this
type
three
is
not
allowed
in
Europe,
but
it
is
actually
encouraged
under
a
slightly
different
definition
in
the
United
States
by
the
by
the
FAA.
So
here's
the
important
point,
whatever
gets
communicated
to
the
regulars
in
the
next
few
months
is
gonna
affect
the
regulations.
They
write
that,
in
turn,
are
going
to
reflect
the
technical
standards
that
we
and
ask
em
right
that
are
going
to
define
what
the
manufacturers
actually
build
then
are
going
to
be
flying
for
the
next
10
years.
D
D
I
have
to
use
the
standard
rig
rules
which
are
a
little
bit
more
and
it
now
the
NP
but
notice
of
proposed
rulemaking
says
that
rid
is
an
enabler
of
various
other
applications,
whereas
ASTM
says
rid
is
just
read:
it's
an
end
in
itself.
The
NPRM
calls
for
error
correction,
but
the
ASTM
standard
doesn't
specify
at
the
end
of
the
RM
calls
for
cybersecurity
whatever
that
means,
but
they
do
at
least
say
specifically
that
they
want
to
protect
both
integrity
and
authenticity.
D
The
STM
standard
again
putz
how
to
do
that,
and
only
shows
you,
the
framing
of
your
off
data,
and
everybody
says
we
should
protect
the
operator
privacy,
but
when
you're
running
broadcaster,
what
I
be
if
rod
casts
the
pilot
GCS
location
in
the
clear
to
anyone
with
a
receiver
device,
we
could
easily
envision
a
situation
where
something
is
bad
is
done
by
one
drone
pilot
and
a
mob
descends
with
baseball
bats
on
another
drone
pilot
and,
furthermore,
no
one
specifies
how
to
protect
personally
identifiable
information
in
the
registries
next
slide.
Please.
D
D
The
idea
is
that
the
u.s.
SS
will
be
required
to
retain
information
for
exactly
six
months,
no
more,
no
less,
because
if
there
needs
to
be
an
inquiry
into
an
accident,
presumably
they'll
get
started
in
less
than
six
months
and
after
six
months
we
don't
want
this
being
used,
for
you
know
other
purposes
next
slide,
please,
okay,
so
we're
wrapping
up
their
requirements.
Presentation
in
the
next
couple
of
slides
from
all
of
the
foregoing,
which
is
essentially
background,
context
use
cases
I
have
derived.
This
is
just
me
and
I'm
sure
I
got
it
wrong.
D
Eight
general
requirements
for
drip,
and
this
is
their
showing
on
the
slide
and
they're
in
the
corresponding
drift
requirements.
Draft
I
really
really
need
people
to
help
me
scrub
these
and
now,
in
addition
to
the
eight
fundamental
requirements,
there's
a
desire
meant
if
broadcast
receivers
can
accurately
date
time
and
location
stamp
what
they
received
and
relay
them,
then
that
allows
us
to
do
all
kinds
of
additional
cool
stuff
about
much
more
later.
Next
slide,
please!
D
Okay!
These
are
requirements
not
on
drip
in
general,
but
on
the
identifier,
for
instance.
The
first
requirement
is
that
it
be
twenty
bytes
or
smaller.
That's
all
we
get,
and
that
is
because
of
the
constraints
of
the
Bluetooth
for
framing
and
then
it
needs
to
be
able
to
it
needs
to
enable
us
to
do
things
with
it
in
terms
of
uniqueness,
the
first
bullet
thereafter
the
number
of
requirements
we
don't
want
to
asila
Tait
adversarial
correlation
with
patterns
of
life.
D
D
And
next
slide,
please,
okay!
This
is
a
recap.
This
is
important
problem,
it's
an
urgent
problem
because
the
European
regulations
already
were
issued
and
they
already
took
effect
almost
a
year
ago
and
they
take
full
effect
in
a
couple
of
months.
The
US
regulations
have
been
proposed
just
two
months
ago
and
the
final
rules
are
expected
about
a
year
from
now
and
we're
going
to
be
locked
in
to
what
the
manufacturers
actually
build.
You
know
in
the
next
couple
of
years,
for
many
years
after
that,
ASTM
did
good
work,
but
either
the
sufficient
work.
D
It
doesn't
enable
you
to
trust
this
information.
It
doesn't
enable
you
to
figure
out
whether
the
operator
is
trusted,
if
you're
out
in
the
middle
of
the
woods,
and
it
doesn't
enable
you
to
instantly
establish
communication,
so
the
pile.
So
you
can
ask
him
what
he's
doing
or
coming
to
get
out
of
the
airspace
or
come
to
land
or
whatever.
Now
a
thing
that
I
learned
in
a
career
of
aviation
networking
is
that
aviators
understand
push-to-talk,
analog
voice
radios.
D
They
do
not
understand
that
working
that
is
changing
as
a
new
generation
moves
into
the
field,
but
they
really
need
our
healthcare.
We
can
leverage
existing
internet
stuff.
We
can
strengthen
the
authentication
and
balance
privacy
would
need
to
know.
We
can
generalize
to
support
a
variety
of
other
applications.
D
We
can
extend
it
all
with
broadcast
and
network
gateways
and
multilateration,
so
we
can
get
independent
confirmation
of
the
otherwise
purely
operator
provided
claims
of
position
and
velocity
and
so
on
now,
because
mapping
the
physical
location
of
an
aircraft
to
an
aircraft's
ID
is
kind
of
similar
to
mapping.
There's
an
inverse
problem.
D
E
E
D
So
it's
through
here
several
of
us
have
joined
ASTM
International
and
our
participating
in
Committee
f30
8.02,
which
is
UAS
operations,
and
they
were
the
ones
who
wrote
the
ASTM,
f34
11
19
standard
and
will
be
revising
it.
There's
a
meeting
of
that
committee
in
about
a
week
and
a
half
and
it's
gonna
be
virtual.
It
was
going
to
be
right
here
in
upstate,
New
York.
We
will
be
actively
participating.
D
We
are
also
thanks
to
some
of
the
other
people
who
are
actually
participating,
I
see
through
Jabbar
we're
going
to
be
hooking
in
with
ICAO
and
others.
That's
about
as
much
as
I
can
say.
Right
now.
There
are
no
formal
liaisons
in
place.
They
would
probably
be
appropriate,
but
I
is
a
relative
noob
to
the
IETF
and
I'm,
not
the
right
one
to
to
push
that.
F
Right
here,
I'd
like
to
ask
about
so
the
regulation
and
measures
of
compliance
and
specifically
number
five
in
your
list
of
general
requirements,
structuring
information
for
human
machine
readability.
Can
you
elaborate
very
concisely
on
that?
We
specifically
have
a
way
to
contribute
to
that
with
work
that
we've
been
doing
over
the
past
while
and
fully
free
open-source
licensing.
But
do
you
have
any?
Can
you
summarize,
what's
already
going
on
there.
D
Yes,
through
here
again,
so
the
way
UAS
rid
was
contemplated
by
the
regulators
and
apparent
by
asked
young
is
that
we
were
going
to
get
an
ID.
It
was
going
to
be
unique.
It
was
going
to
be
presented
to
human
eyeballs.
Humans
were
then
going
to
be
able
to
do
a
lookup
in
a
registry.
Human
eyeballs
again
were
then
going
to
read
the
information
that
was
in
that
registry,
which
would
contain
all,
for
instance,
a
telephone
number.
D
The
humans
were
then
going
to
pick
up
a
telephone
call,
a
telephone
number
and
interact
with
the
party
on
the
other
end,
who
has
some
responsibility
for
the
safe
operation
of
that
aircraft?
Now,
if
I'm,
a
hobbyist
and
I'm
out,
you
know
fly-in
my
model
and
my
phone
rings
I'm,
not
answering
my
phone
while
I'm
flying
my
model
airplane.
So
that's
you
know
the
first
weakness
that
we
see
with
that.
D
So
what
we
have
added
to
the
discussion
is
this
idea
that
if
you
make
this
information
machine
readable
now
I
could
have
you
know
if
I'm
I
don't
know
a
firefighter
at
the
scene,
a
one
button
way
of
contacting
the
aircraft's
operator
piloting
command
whatever,
and
this
is
certainly
not
yet
defined
in
either
the
regulator's
minds
or
the
ASTM
mine.
It's
something
that
we've
added
to
the
discussion.
F
Here
we
have
done
some
work
where
the
ID
can
be
associated
with
a
control
table
where
he
concisely,
expressed
in
JSON
or
C.
Bohr
and
part
of
our
team
is
actually
actively
involved
in
the
drone
racing
community,
and
so
in
terms
of
associating
a
control
table
with
an
ID.
We
could
then
keep
within
your
20
byte
limit
and
have
some
core
elements
that
say
you
EU
regulations,
US
regulations
or
other
jurisdiction
regulations
associated
with
that
ID.
D
Here
again,
yes,
absolutely
some
of
these
things
are
very
small.
Very
light
have
very
small
batteries.
They're
already
over
constrained,
including
anything
else
on
them,
is
just
a
non-starter.
Many
of
them
are
not
retrofittable
these
legacy
thanks
and
so
I
I'm
rarely
one
to
give
government
agencies
much
credit.
D
But
in
this
case
I
say
that
I
think
it
was
a
stroke
of
brilliance
on
the
part
of
the
FAA
to
allow
perhaps
less
brilliant,
to
require
Network
rid
as
the
baseline
mode
of
operation
and
to
allow
that
network
grid
to
be
sent
from
any
part
of
the
UAS
meaning
it
doesn't
have
to
come
from
the
unmanned
aircraft.
It
can
come
from
the
ground
control
station.
D
H
So
I
think
it's
worth
mentioning.
The
other
still
is
also
using
the
same
ID
things
like
SVG
P
P,
and
we
actually
charge
I
find
a
way
to
use
the
similar
ID
from
an
ASTM,
some
sort
of
authentication.
So
promising
is
trend.
This
might
be
keep
those
information.
You
hatty
right
make
sure
our
work
hits
a
line
because
the
purpose
of
the
IDs.
D
C
A
Yeah
I
would
I
mean
I
would
encourage
to
have
that
discussion
through
the
mailing
list
so
that
everyone
can
take
power
of
it.
Of
course,
yeah.
If
that's
possible,
I
mean
I'm.
It's
fine
contacting
the
atom
in
stirred,
but
I'm
I
mean
it
would
be
even
better.
A
D
I
D
So
the
ASTM
took
its
lead
from
both
the
European
and
American
regulators,
who
said
it's
critically
important
that
first
responders
firemen
police
etcetera,
be
able
to
identify
these
aircraft
using
devices
that
they
can
reasonably
be
expected
to
already
have
on
their
person,
and
that
meant,
unfortunately,
Bluetooth
4,
and
so
that's
a
direct
Bluetooth
for
transmission
from
the
aircraft
to
the
observers.
Body,
worn,
handheld
device,
Bluetooth
5
is
also
in
their
spec
and
Wi-Fi
with
neighbor
awareness.
D
Networking
is
in
their
store
and
there
have
been
discussions
within
ASTM
about
allowing
or
even
requiring
other
media,
but
that's
the
technical
specification
as
it
stands
in
the
December
2019
version.
Now
that's
for
broadcast
read
for
network
grid.
Anything
that
will
get
you
on.
The
Internet
is
fine.
I
A
F
Joseph
I
texe
algorithms,
so
in
terms
of
the
getting
the
communication
going
on
with
any
device.
The
way
we've
approached,
that
is,
that
we've
separated
out
the
kind
of
a
specification
for
rule
makers
and
a
specification
for
rural
takers
and
we're
doing
we've
got
a
reference
implementations
of
each,
but
that
specification
of
component
for
a
rule
taker
can
then
be
either
created
in
or
you
know,
recreated
in
some
fashion
or
other
in
any
device.
That's
the
idea.
J
So
I
understand
that
a
lot
of
organizations
seem
to
believe
that
there
is
a
value
in
having
something
like
a
broadcast
rip
I'm
I'm
a
little
bit
less
sure
about
that
I
mean
considering
the
speed
of
the
internet
and
really
fairly
wide
availability
of
internet
convicted,
connected
devices
to
people
like
firefighters,
rather
than
jumping
through
the
hoops
and
expecting
every
drone
to
have
a
Bluetooth
interface,
which
they
simply
don't
right.
Now,
why
not?
J
D
Have
to
give
I
guess
about
three
answers
to
this
question.
First
off
I
agree
with
some
of
your
thinking,
but
second,
the
decision
making
is
kind
of
above
our
pay
grade
with
the
regulators
and
thirdly,
I
think
that
there
there's
a
lot
of
back
pressure
in
the
United
States
against
the
FAA,
saying
that
you
must
do
Network
and
I
think
there's
some
back
pressure
in
Europe
against
them.
Saying
that
you
must
do
broadcast.
D
D
But
I
do
want
to
make
the
point
that
there
are
areas
of
interest
where
there
really
isn't
ubiquitous
Internet
activity,
I'm
aware,
for
instance,
of
one
Air
Force
Base
in
California
it
is
thousands
of
acres
and
there's
there's
just
not
ubiquitous
LTE
over
that
base,
and
if
somebody
you
know
sees
an
aircraft,
they
still
want
to
be
able
to
identify
it.
So.
A
Yeah
so
so
I
do
have
a
little
question
and
I'm
not
I'm,
not
sure
it's
an
otoscope
of
the
trip
concerned
and
I'm
just
wondering
is
that
well
currently
we're
saying
yeah.
This
is
me.
This
is,
and
providing
some
identity
information
to
an
observer,
but
I'm
is
it
outside
of
the
scope
of
this
work,
to
ask
some
kind
of
authorization
to
go
into
some
areas.
D
So
that
is
strictly
speaking,
outside
of
the
skull
of
UAS
really,
but
within
the
scope
of
UTM
UAS
traffic
management.
Uas
traffic
management
is
all
about
saying.
Mother
may
I
fly
in
the
following
aircraft:
four
dimensional
volume
right
latitude,
longitude
altitude
and
time
and
originally
UTM
and
UAS
remote
ID
were
contemplated
as
two
entirely
separate
animals,
but
there
has
been
increasing
awareness
over
the
last
year,
especially
the
last
six
months
that
they
really
need
to
be
integrated.
A
Okay,
okay,
so
let's
conclude
this
work
on
the
requirement,
so
I
think
we
need
some.
We
need
you
need
to
have
the
requirements
more
specific.
That's
my
my
my
view
regarding
the
document.
So
we
really
need
the
people
that
are
online
and
on
the
mailing
list
to
have
those
discussions
and
to
see
whether
I
mean
at
first.
First
things
could
be.
You
look
at
the
requirements
and
you
you
may
be
asked
for
clarifications
and
provide
feedback
so
that
the
co-author
can
respond
and
adjust
the
requirements.
A
B
B
B
A
D
D
So
I
don't
really
have
what
what
I
have
here
is
on
this
slide.
Basically,
just
the
cast
of
characters.
The
aircraft
itself
is
the
source
of
broadcast
rid
up
on
top
over
on
the
left.
When
I
say,
pilot
or
operator
is
a
label,
and
then
you
two
stick
figures
in
these
cartoons:
I'm
referring
to
several
different
entities
that
often
will
be
identical,
but
even
when
they're
not
identical,
they'll
generally
be
co-located.
The
operator
is
typically
a
corporation,
the
owner
or
the
lessee
of
of
the
aircraft.
D
The
pilot
in
command
is
the
one
that
the
courts
are
going
to
hold
responsible
for
the
safe
flight
of
the
aircraft.
The
role
pilot,
who
might
be
the
same
guy
as
the
pilot
in
command
or
might
be
a
different
one
operating
under
your
supervision,
is
the
one
who's
actually
operating
the
controls,
the
ground
control
station,
the
GCS
is
the
controls.
And
finally,
this
is
typically
the
source
of
network
remote
ID.
D
Although
a
network
remote
ID
can
be
sourced
from
the
aircraft
depending
upon
what
rules
you're
operating
under
now,
there
may
be
some
other
entities
in
play,
but
they're
not
required
by
the
regulations
and
not
required
by
the
external
technical
standards,
for
instance,
a
supplemental
data
service
provider.
We
cannot
make
remote
ID
dependent
a
supplemental
data
service
provider,
but
we
could
enhance
what
remote
IV
provides
using
SD
SBS.
Now,
finally,
my
registry
were
denoted
a
bunch
of
different
functions
that
will
almost
certainly
all
be
provided
by
the
same
service
bureaus.
D
You
know
whether
the
running
on
the
same
CPU
cores
is
irrelevant.
Obviously,
the
central
function
is
that
of
a
UAS
traffic
management.
Uas
services
supplier
in
the
u.s.
s,
and
but
because
of
these
slides,
were
kind
of
focusing
on
the
registry
function
that
labeled
it
registry
rather
than
us
s.
Next
slide,
please,
okay!
D
So
there's
a
little
more
room
for
verification
and
there's
a
little
more
room
for
stronger
correlation,
because
you
can
pack
it
to
a
bunch
of
short
messages
together
in
one
bundle
and
authenticate
the
bundle,
and
so
now,
if
one
of
the
messages
in
the
bundle
is
Who,
I
am,
and
another
message
is
where
I
am
you
can
now?
You
know
strongly
cover
those,
unlike
in
the
broadcast
case,
next
slide.
Okay,.
D
So
again,
our
thesis
is
that
rich
should
be
immediately
actionable
and
that
that
involves
a
few
sub-bullets
first
off.
The
information
needs
to
be
trustworthy.
Second,
and
this
is
a
stretch
beyond
what
a
SDM
was
thinking,
but
even
if
you
can
at
this
instant,
identify
uniquely
the
operator
because
you've
got
his
full
page
ID
string,
but
you
don't
have
the
internet
connectivity
that
would
allow
you
to
use
that
opaque,
ID
string
as
a
key
to
look
them
up
in
a
database.
D
D
There
may
be
people
who
trust
me
and
who
trust
the
rules
that
I
used
to
vet
operators
before
I
am
willing
to
register
them
and
issue
them
one
of
these
IDs,
and
so
when
they
see
a
beak
and
coming
off
on
these
aircraft
that
they
can't
look
up
who
of
the
millions
of
registrants.
It
is
until
they
get
back
to
you,
know
the
office
where
they've
got
their
internet
connection,
but
they
can
look
in
their
little
database
on
their
phone.
D
Their
data
make
some
registries
and
see
that
oh
yeah,
this
this
aircraft
is
registered
within
the
blue
registry.
Therefore
I'm
going
to
trust
it.
This
other
aircraft
is
registered
within
the
green
registry,
so
yeah
I
know
it
is
properly
registered.
But
it's
in
the
registry,
that's
used
by
everybody
who
goes
and
buys
the
drones
at
Walmart,
so
I'm,
not
necessarily
going
to
trust
them
to
fly
in
this
sensitive
airspace.
Right
now,
oh
and
then
the
last
thing
is.
D
We
think
it's
really
really
important
to
enable
instant
communications
with
somebody
who
has
the
ability
to
influence
right
now,
the
operation
of
the
aircraft,
because,
let's
say
I'm,
an
air
defense
operator
ready
and
I'm,
going
to
decide
whether
or
not
to
shoot
this
thing
now
well,
I
thought
most
drone
operators
would
rather
get
a
call
for
me
first,
so
that
they
would
have
the
opportunity
to
say.
Oh
I'm,
sorry
I
didn't
mean
to
stray
into
this
airspace.
I
will
gladly
exited
her
land
rather
than
be
shot
down
right.
D
So
our
idea
is
to
complement
existing
external
standards,
meet
a
regulatory
or
technical
to
leverage,
not
only
the
protocols
of
the
internet
and
its
infrastructure
and
its
services,
but
even
business
models
and
obviously
IETF
expertise.
We
want
to
complement
the
ASTM
standard
to
mitigate
shortfalls
and
support
a
variety
of
closely
related
applications.
Our
stretch
goal
all
of
the
information
in
the
UAS
traffic
management
system
and
in
the
UAS
remote
identification
system
is
operator,
provided
I
say
that
this
is
who
I
am
and
where
I
am
and
where
I'm
going
I
could
be
lying.
D
It
would
be
great
if
we
could
have
some
independent
confirmation
or
reputation
of
that.
So
if
we
gateway
broadcasts
read
in
the
network
grid
now
that
would
enable
both
the
Europeans
and
the
FAA
to
lower
the
bar
on
small
drones
and
say
you
can
do
Network
or
you
can
do
broadcast.
You
can
do
either.
One
number
one
is
more
convenient
for
you
because
it
became
out
as
broadcast.
Initially
it's
going
to
end
up
in
network,
so
it's
the
best
of
both
worlds.
D
Furthermore,
all
of
these
receivers,
whether
they
be
things
that
we
precision
pre
position
around
the
fences
of
nuclear
power
plants
and
airports,
or
whether
this
is
you
know,
crowd-sourced
smartphones.
This
will
allow
us
to
do
multilateration
and
get
independent
measurements
on
where
this
thing
really
is,
as
opposed
to
where
the
operator
provide
message
says,
it
is
next
slide
please.
D
D
So
I'm
well
aware
that
hip
has
not
gained
a
tremendous
amount
of
traction.
Although
there
are
some
very
dedicated
users
of
whom
not
a
lot
of
people
are
aware
of
anyway,
it
just
seemed
like
it
was
an
actual
match
here.
So
we've
got
a
couple
of
minor
tweaks
to
ASTM,
and
a
couple
of
updates
or
enhancements
to
hip
first
hip
needs
new
crypto
about
master
which
has
been
working
on
this.
D
It
needs
new
crypto
just
for
hip
in
general,
and
it
needs
it
specifically
here
before
you
may
ask
remote
ID
to
fit
strong
signatures
and
certificates
in
the
very
small
Bluetooth
packets.
Now
I
know
that
certificates
is
a
word
that
may
be
somewhat
controversial,
I'm
up
for
a
fight,
but
not
today,
in
our
limited
time,
hopes
identity
tags
need
to
be
extended
to
allow
for
a
registry
hierarchy.
This
is
what
Bob
calls
hierarchical
host
identity
tags
that
solves
a
lot
of
problems
for
us
remote
ID.
D
We
have
integrated
the
baseline
stn
stuff
from
gabriel
cox
of
Intel,
open
drone,
IV
code
and
prototype.
Some
of
our
extensions
we've
actually
flown
it
more
than
once
at
the
New
York
touch
site
and
we've
updated.
Those
prototypes
to
authenticate
UAS,
read
claims
and
as
soon
as
weather
credits
will
fly
again
next
slide.
Please!
D
Ok!
If
you
buy
most
of
those
requirements
from
the
previous
presentation.
Almost
all
of
them
are
easily
satisfied.
If
the
UAS
identifier
is
a
hierarchical
hit,
that's
Indian,
US
and
in
who
is,
and
if
you
access,
who
is
with
our
nap
and
if
you
populate,
who
is
with
EPP
and
if
you
access
control
all
that
goes
Oh
Silas
with
xacml
next
slide,
please,
okay,
the
two
bold
ones
at
the
top
in
green.
D
D
Okay,
this
is
what
we
can
do
if
we
knew
the
putative
design
that
we've
been
working
on,
we
can
authenticate
the
messages
really
came
from
their
alleged
source
without
needing
internet
connectivity
next
slide.
Obviously
this
just
signatures:
okay,
here's
the
thing
that
you
know
ASTM
hadn't
contemplated
the
regulators
haven't
contemplated.
This
is
the
idea
of
having
multiple
registries
and
just
on
the
basis
of
which
registry
you
prove
you
are
in
which
can
be
done
with
a
one-way
broadcast.
D
We
know
whether
you're
in
the
registry
of
good-x
next
slide,
please
obviously
you're
gonna.
Do
this.
We're
gonna
require
an
operator
registration
process
next
slide.
We're
also
gonna
require
an
individual
aircraft
registration
process.
Now
one
thing
I
want
to
be
clear
out.
I
should
have
said
this
earlier:
the
UAS
ID,
even
though
it's
called
a
UAS
ID.
Isn't
it's
a
UA
ID?
It
is
specific
to
the
aircraft.
If
I
am
one
operator
and
I
have
to
ground
control
stations
and
I
operate
four
aircraft?
D
D
Oh
yeah
great-
and
this
is
once
I've
got
an
ID
through
red
I,
want
to
look
up
information
and
it's
important
that
this
be
access
control
and
we
believe
that
our
Davin
xacml
can
do
that
for
us
and
the
whole
idea
of
the
registries
has
been
largely
punted
by
everybody
in
UAS,
remote,
ID
and
they're,
thinking
that
they
need
to
invent
the
whole
new
thing
and
build
whole
new
things.
They
don't.
The
internet
already
has
ways
of
registering
names.
D
D
Okay,
now
here's
here's
one
of
our
stretch
goals
if
the
observer
actually
has
not
just
hits
but
honestly
got
hit
on
his
smart
phone
and
if
the
pilot
has
hit
on
his
smart
phone,
then
bang
the
observer
can
reach
out
and
touch
the
pilots
smartphone.
You
know
you
a
flying
app
and
tell
them
that
they
need
to
talk
next
slide.
Please.
D
D
Okay,
these
are
identifier
requirements
as
opposed
to
generic
drip
requirements.
These
are
satisfied.
The
entire
echo
head
in
DNS
engine,
who
is
that's
all
of
them,
except
for
one
of
the
the
bollocks
law
next
slide,
even
is
a
single-use
hierarchical
hip.
Then
it
satisfies
the
last
one,
which
is
to
not
facilitate
adversarial
correlation
the
patterns
of
life,
because
it's
only
a
single-use
identifier.
However,
it's
a
single-use
identifier,
we're
gonna,
have
a
lot
of
them
being
registered
from
moment
to
moment,
so
we've
got
to
have
scalable,
timely
registration
methods
next
slide.
D
Okay,
and-
and
this
is
the
last
piece
that
Bob
is
added
to
this-
the
idea
that
if
we,
if
we
enable
these
gateways
from
broadcaster,
is
the
network
read
now
not
only
do
we
get
a
best
of
both
worlds,
an
area
where
either
can
be
supported
by
the
UAS
operator,
and
yet
everybody
gets
the
situational
awareness
that
they
want.
It
also
gives
us
the
opportunity
for
multilateration,
which
would
probably
be
performed
by
a
supplemental
data
service
provider.
D
Now,
really,
you
know
I've
only
shown
to
observers
here,
that's
because
it
all
my
slides
to
get
all
that
busy,
but
multilateration
to
get
a
3d
position
requires
at
least
four
observers.
Now,
when
you
keep
in
mind,
some
of
these
observers
will
lie,
and
others
will
just
have
inaccurate
measurements
of
the
more
the
merrier
next
slide.
Okay
last
slide,
this
is
this
is
an
urgent
need.
D
The
stakeholder
needs
that
are
recognized
by
the
regulators
will
influence
the
standards
that
the
manufacturers
will
follow
and
we're
going
to
be
stuck
with
this
for
years.
The
situational
awareness
will
only
be
useful
if
the
information
is
immediately
actionable.
That
implies
all
those
bullets
there
in
the
middle.
A
lot
can
be
achieved
by
making
minor
adaptations
to
existing
internet
standards
and
and
reusing
existing
Internet
infrastructure.
D
Now
the
group
that's
been
doing
this
so
far
here
adam
bob
me
some
programmers
that
work
with
us
we've
gone
quite
a
ways
down
the
hip
road,
but
this
doesn't
have
to
be
hit
again.
I'm
sensitive
to
the
fact
that
hip
doesn't
have
a
lot
of
traction
and
if
other
people
have
other
things
that
will
genuinely
meet
the
need,
we're
all
ears,
and
we
desperately
need
your
help.
Thank
you.
I'm
done.
E
D
E
E
Much
of
a
problem
article,
if
you
look
what
happens
in
my
time
in
the
context
of
dealing
with
adapt
and
various
issues,
one
for
sick
ninety
abused
people
are
already
screaming
very
very
lightly.
These
are
appendix
s.
Two
information
about
who
holds
the
meaning
is
already
problem.
Article
and
I
can't
be
happy
with
that
for
about
twenty
years
now
and
still
hasn't
come
up
with
solution.
E
The
second
consideration
there
is
going
to
be
the
if
you
get
any
sort
of
information
that
identifies
a
human
being
see
result
of
these
workups,
the
GD
P
I
will
apply
the
European
general
data
protection
regulation
and
that
will
get
you
into
our
shoes
wrong
with
hot,
so
I
think
it'll
be
very,
very
important.
Have
a
dialogue
with
the
data
protection
authorities
and
also
encourage
the
aviation
or
scientists
are
in
contact
with
the
data
protection
authorities,
particularly,
but
not
only
that.
D
Yeah
one
of
the
things
that
absolutely
astonished
me
is
that
the
European
Union
Aviation
Safety
Agency,
required
the
ASTM
type
1
identifier,
which
is
the
static
manufacturer
assigned
ID,
and
you
know
Europe
is
so
hard
over
on
privacy
and
yet
here's
this
thing
that
I'm
gonna
beacon
in
clear
text
to
anybody
who
wasn't
range
to
receive
it
every
time.
I
fly.
This
seems
to
me
quite
counterintuitive
and
one
of
the
areas
in
which
I'm
hoping
we
can
help.
I
D
K
D
Yeah
so
I
first
got
involved
with
IP
mobility,
quite
a
while
back
in
the
early
days
of
mobile
IP,
and
we
were
doing
it
specifically
for
aircraft.
You
know
we
had
aircraft
that
we're
flying
along,
which
meant
that
they
were
handing
off
from
from
one
base
station
to
another
station,
and
these
base
stations
were
often
operated
by
different
organizations
with
different
security
policies,
different
routing,
realms,
etc,
etc,
and
it
was
pretty
challenging
and.
D
Although
there
have
been
great
strides
made
in
IP
mobility
in
the
last
20
years,
I
still
don't
see
secure,
arbitrary
mobility.
You
know
your
mobility
terminal,
mobility,
service
mobility
as
being
one
of
the
strong
suits
of
the
Internet,
and
yet
it's
fundamentally
what
aviation
is
all
about
is
is
mobility,
so
I
can't
say
anything
more
specific
than
that,
but
happy
to
have
more
specific,
detailed
technical
interactions
on
the
mailing
list.
G
Every
vehicle
that
has
flown
the
last
hundred
years
has
had
its
identity
as
a
matter
of
public
information.
Big
letters
painted
on
the
side,
every
vehicle
that
drives
in
the
street
and
every
ship
that
sails
on
the
sea
has
its
identity
as
public
information.
I'm,
really
surprised
that
drones
should
be
a
special
case
in
here,
and
I
could
understand
the
Europeans
taking
the
position
of
backing
the
hundred
year.
Tradition
was
more
than
hundred
years
for
ships
as
to
GDP
our
GDP.
Our
is
personally
identified.
Information
is
the
primary
concern
and
this
isn't
really
personal
information.
D
That's
mostly
correct,
however.
The
broadcast
information
includes
not
only
the
location
of
the
vehicle,
but
also
the
location
of
the
ground
control
station
and
the
pilot,
which
means
you
know,
mobs
with
baseball
bats,
can
descend
upon
him
and
while
they
won't
learn
his
mother's
maiden
name
from
the
information,
you
know,
I
think
they'll
be
learning
information
that
still
can
place
them
at
risk
and
I
do
know
that
a
lot
of
a
lot
of
the
pilots
are
very
concerned
about
this.
G
D
Yeah
I
guess
I
am
for
seeing
as
many
of
the
pilots
with
whom
I
have
spoken
after
seeing
the
following
scenario.
Somebody
does
something
bad
with
a
drone
and
then
somebody
else
subsequently
is
seen
well
not
to
somebody.
The
drone
is
seen
flying
and
it
is
easy
to
envision
the
scenario.
I,
don't
know
how
likely
it
is
in
reality,
but
it
is
easy
to
envision
the
scenario
or
because
they
had
somebody
as
stadium.
D
G
There's
a
steward,
so
I
fly
model
aircraft
within
the
Gatwick
control
area,
with
the
full
permission
of
Gatwick,
and
we
fly
in
exactly
the
sort
of
place
where
people
would
have
launched
when
they
did
the
denial
of
service
attack
on
on
Gatwick,
and
there
has
never
ever
been
been
an
issue.
The
closest
we've
ever
had
is
one
police
officers
saying
I
wish
the
CIA
had
told
us.
You
had
permission
to
be
here.
D
Okay,
I
guess
we're
probably
not
going
to
resolve
this
here,
but
I
do
want
to
drop
a
couple
of
somewhat
finer
distinctions.
There
is
the
public
visibility
of
simply
the
identifier
itself
is
one
thing,
and
then
there
is
the
visibility
of
the
information
about
the
operator.
You
know
name
rank
serial
number
or
home
address
whatever
those
are
two
different
things
and
require.
You
know.
A
H
Fine
yeah,
I
I,
think
agree
with
a
Stewart
with
the
some
of
the
public
information
with
some
information
was
not
available
to
the
public
regarding
the
drone
flight,
but
a
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong
what
I'm
in
reading
the
region
of
the
FAA
is
trying
to
integrate
the
general
aviation.
Let's
see
ATC
controls
and
all
the
commands
with
the
drone
in
the
future,
either
which
way
they
are
taking.
So
we
don't
know
but
I
think
for
the
architecture
you
presented
here.
D
Aviation
authorities
are
extremely
risk-averse,
and
so
it
is
very
difficult
to
experiment
with
new
concepts
in
air
traffic
control
where,
as
you
know,
small
unmanned
aircraft
systems
have
been
regarded
as
as
non-threatening
and
we've
pretty
much
had
the
field
free
to
play
for
the
past
few
years.
So
the
things
that
we
are
doing
using
more
modern
technologies
and
more
modern
command
and
control
concepts
that
involve
distributed
rather
than
top-down,
centralized,
they're,
very,
very
much
thinking
about
you
know
if
they
work
out
for
small
drones.
D
L
L
You
know
examples
in
the
IDF
of
having
as
an
organization
opinions
about
you
know,
privacy
or
in
which
we
haven't
done
a
lot
about
rep
Aaron,
see
right
if
I'm
thinking
about
being
a
just
a
normal,
you
know
person
and
in
the
future
being
subject
to
a
lot
of
you
know,
flying
drones.
I
would
very
much
lean
out
and
say
I'd
love.
D
D
Transparency
is
going
to
be
very
important
because
these
things
do
present
risks
and
even
above
and
beyond
the
actual
risks
they
present.
There
are,
you
know,
just
fears
and
concerns
and
I
haven't
seen
as
much
discussion
of
transparency
within
IETF
in
general,
as
I
have
seen
a
privacy.
So
maybe
we
will
be
one
of
the
first
to
explore
that
balancing
issue.
J
I
have
some
limited
experience
with
a
man
carrying
regulation,
work
and
I
mean
when
you
just
look
at
things
that
are
obvious
to
these
to
those
of
us
who
have
taken
a
flight
lesson
at
some
point
in
their
lives
or
whatever.
When
you
look
at
things
like
like
the
the
the
most
recent
regulatory
regulatory
chain
and
the
man
carrying
aviation
was
introduction
of
a
thing
called
ATS
B,
which
is
basically
the
man
carrying
companion
to
remote
ID
and
that
took
like
20
years
right,
no
problem.
We
should
do
this.
D
Yeah,
that's
a
valid
point.
I
think
the
only
area
where,
though,
we're
gonna,
see
an
intersection
between
the
two
is
this
whole
notion
of
urban
air
mobility
and
air
taxis
that
will
not
have
the
human
pilot
on
board.
Maybe
there'll
be
a
remote
human
pilot
or
maybe
it
will
be
automatically.
You
know,
autonomously
piloted
and
they're
going
to
be
operating
at
low
altitudes,
so
that's
kind
of
in
the
intersection
of
the
different
worlds
of
traditional,
manned
aviation,
and
you
know
low
altitude,
unmanned
aircraft.
C
No
so
I
will
say:
there's
been
a
lot
of
discussion
on
the
jabber
that
I'm
going
to
try
to
capture
after
the
fact
I'm
gonna
keep
the
window
open
and
try
to
fill
the
the
ether
pad
and
try
to
get
it
down
like
high
level
but
I
believe
the
jabbers
being
saved.
But
there
was
some
really
good
discussion
on
identifier,
z'
and
everything
there
I
just
wanted
to
point
that
out.
Okay.
A
Okay,
so
well
that's
great
that
we
have
a
ongoing
discussion,
so
let
me
ask
everyone
has
registered
to
the
as
put
his
name
to
the
blue
sheet,
I
hope,
so
so
otherwise
you
still
have
four
minutes
to
do
that.
So
please
do
it
right
now
and
then
this
discussion
I,
think
it
was
I
mean
we
had
some
great
discussion,
at
least
at
the
mic
and
even
more
interesting
on
the
driver.
So
that's
very
readable
very
much
the
way
we
expect
those
interim
meetings
and
I
mean
this
virtual
meeting
to
work.
A
As
mentioned
earlier.
We
have
a
proposed
milestone,
which
is
you
complete
those
documents
so
that
they
can
be
ready
for
adoption
and
to
I
mean
it's
not
I
mean
the
goal
is
not
to
have
those
adopted,
but
you
have
those
ready
to
be
sent
to
work
in
your
Blasco
and
we
really
want
to
have
that
for
July,
which
means
that
I
mean
things
has
to
be
ready,
April
May,
and
then
we
will
have
to
start
to
to
go
through
the
solution
space.
Is
that
reasonable
schedule
for
everyone?
A
D
Here,
I'm
eager
to
get
reviews,
because
I
I
know
that
the
drafts
need
a
lot
of
improvement,
but
I
need
guidance
on
you
know
what
improvements
to
make
and
I
will
be
as
additionals
as
possible
and
making
them
once
I
get
the
feedback
and
if
I
could
just
make.
One
part
I
hope
that
this
is
the
last
trip
working
group
meeting
in
which
I
will
speak
for
such
a
large
fraction
of
the
air
time.
J
You
did
a
good
job.
I
think
we
are
I,
think
we're
not
using
queue
management
right
now
the
timeline
looks
aggressive
to
me.
Itf
timelines
are
always
aggressive
and
never
kept,
but
what's
even
more
more
problematic
to
me
is
that
the
regulatory
timeline
is
even
stricter.
I
wonder
whether
the
ITF
is
the
right
organization
to
do
this
work
be
very
blunt
because
we're
not
fast
cookie.
D
God,
that's
legit,
I
have
told
the
people
with
whom
I'm
working
that
the
IETF
moves,
rather
slowly,
not
as
slowly
as
the
FAA,
but
slowly
and
so
there's
kind
of
like
two
parallel
tracks
going
on.
There's
the
prototyping
and
the
testing
that
we
are
doing,
which
doesn't
need
a
standard
to
support
it.
It's
you
know
it's
technology,
research
and
development
and
demonstration
to
stakeholders
and
and
so
on.
L
By
the
way,
just
one
comment:
I,
don't
think
that
ETF
is
slow.
The
question
is:
how
many
cycles
can
the
people
whose
expertise
is
needed
provide
in
what
time
frame
right?
So,
if
you're
looking
for
the
expertise
here
and
you
want
it
a
bit
faster
I
think
you
need
to
go
picking
on
those
people,
that
you
need
contributions
for
to
to
speed
up
the
process,
but
that
would
have
to
happen
outside
the
ITF
as
well.
I
Hi,
this
is
homicide
if
anyone
manages
to
Cupid
I'm,
not
sure
whether
regulators
would
actually
be
really
that
fast,
unlike
in
Europe
I,
think
they
are
currently
out
of
problems
than
a
type
of
regulation.
J
Yes,
I
agree.
On
the
other
hand,
the
last
time
when
I've
seen
even
a
moderately
sized
project
in
the
ITF
to
be
advertised
to
be
completed
in
a
year
or
two.
It
usually
you
know.
Usually
it
takes
five
right,
let's
be
honest
with
ourselves.
We
have
that
time.
So
so
we're
not
talking
about
a
month
granularity,
we're
talking
about
a
year,
granularity,
I.
A
B
A
Yeah
yeah
yeah
yeah
I
mean
what
I
would
like
to
avoid.
Is
that
because
the
deadline
I
mean
if
we
are
advertising
that
we
are
slow
and
people
come
say,
might
envision
that
okay,
then
I
have
time
to
I'd
like
the
comments
to
come
as
early
as
possible.
So
we
can
address
them
one
by
one
rather
than
having
long
cycles
with
no
reviews
and
then
working
group
last
goal,
then
we
got
older
the
comments.
L
Michael
gave
a
good
way
to
divide
and
conquer
right,
so
you
can
try
to
focus
on
getting
out
as
fast
as
possible.
First
version
of
a
proposed
solution
or
other
you
know
normative
recommendations
and
to
speed
that
up.
You
just
have
to
basically
make
sure
that
the
people
whose
input
you
need
are
fast,
reacting
right
and
that
is
in
the
working
groups
face
it's
it's
it's
fairly,
easy
I
think
that
the
main
issue
comes
when
it
goes
for
iti
can.
Is
you
review.
I
L
L
L
F
Useful
to
separate
out
the
requirement
to
ensure
that
the
regulations
as
they
are
are
properly
represented
against
ID,
verse
and
then
separately
the
debatable
issues
about
what
they
ought
to
be,
so
that
an
initial
version
can
get
out
to
ensure
that
whatever
the
regulations
are
in
any
given
jurisdiction,
that's
handled,
and
then
it
will
take
certain
things.
Some
time
to
resolve
unresolved
issues.
A
Okay,
so
well,
shuttle.
A
Mean
I'm
so
the
way
it's
gonna
work
is
we're.
Gonna
say:
do
you
think
those
documents
are
ready,
I
mean
it
should
be
adopted
in
April,
and
so
there
is
a
two-week
school
so
that
the
people
can
say
yes
or
no,
and
and
at
that
time
it's
the
working
of
I
mean
the
document
is
going
to
be
adopted
by
the
working
group.
A
It
means
that
the
working
group
is
focusing
on
those
documents
to
produce
them
and
then,
when
the
documents
are
over
finished,
we
believe
so
we
proceed
to
what
we
call
a
working
group
last
goal.
So
then
we
issue
working
group
last
goal
singing
to
the
mailing
list.
We
think
the
document
is
ready
to
move
forward
so
he's
anyone
I
mean
we're
a
there.
Does
anyone
want
to
raise
any
comment
and
then
the
document
moved
to
the
is
G
which
is
at
the
end
end
up
as
a
and
her
with
an
RFC
number
you've.
A
M
Eirik
here
you
are
free
to
continue
using
this
web-based
room
for
a
while
I
think
it
is,
will
be
extended
back
automatically,
but
Daniel,
II
and
Matt.
If
you
can
close
the
meeting
closing
minutes
and
feel
free
to
continue
talking
about
any
topics
like
if
you
were
in
the
hallway
right,
not
well,
obviously
the
discussion.
Okay.
Thank
you
so
much
for
this
for
the
discussion.
I'm.
Anything
I
need
to
go
to
another
chord.
Okay,.
E
E
G
A
A
A
D
Yeah,
it's
here,
I'll
be
the
first
to
say
that,
even
though
I
have
put
a
lot
of
thought
into
them,
these,
my
two
drafts
at
least,
are
not
yet
ready
for
working
group
adoption.
However,
I
believe
that
if
I
incorporate
the
feedback
that
I
received
in
the
last
week,
plus
the
feedback
that
I
received
in
the
last
two
hours
and
then
I
hope
to
receive,
you
know
this
weekend,
I
think
at
that
point
they
should
be
ready
for
working
group
adoption
and
get
more
people
tearing
into
them.
H
A
Thank
you.
There
is
no
I
mean
it's
fine,
I
mean
as
long
as
people
don't
wait.
Three
weeks,
it's
fine
and
we'd
say
I
mean
well
three
months
I
mean
we
would
like.
We
focus
on
those
for
now.
So
that's
a
that's.
The
real
message
and
I
like
to
thank
everyone,
as
well
as
a
secretary
for
making
all
this
happening
and
I
suggest
that
we
close
the
meeting
and
that
we
have
this
continuous
work
through
the
interim
meetings
as
well.
A
So
if
you
have
a
I'm
going
to
start
a
doodle
next
week,
probably
if
you
have
a
specific
time
zone,
please
drop
me
an
email
currently,
the
time
zone
where
you're
considering
is
East,
Coast
and
Europe.
If
you're
outside
those
zone
I
mean
please
let
let
me
know
so,
we
can't
have
try
to
find
an
appropriate
scale
right.