►
From YouTube: DRIP WG Interim Meeting, 2020-06-24
Description
DRIP WG Interim Meeting, 2020-06-24
A
B
A
So
the
straightforward
one
is
two
aircraft,
neither
of
which
is
t
cass
equipped
because
they're,
both
small
UAS,
that
aren't
required
to
be
tcats
equipped,
and
you
know
well,
you
know
one
drone
operator
sees
another
drone
and
they
just
want
to
coordinate
so
that
they
will.
You
know,
stay
out
of
each
other's
hair.
So.
A
C
A
So
these
are
news
items
and
some
of
them
perhaps
we're
not
new
to
everyone,
but
they
were
new
to
me
in
the
US.
The
FAA
is
part
of
the
Department
of
Transportation
and
back
in
April,
but
I
only
learned
of
it.
A
couple
of
weeks
ago,
they
released
a
position
paper
kind
of
just
a
set
of
slides,
entitled
blockchain
for
unmanned
aircraft
systems,
and
it
has
a
chapter
three
that
would
only
take
anybody,
five
minutes
to
read
and
digest,
and
that
might
be
worth
doing
of
greater
interest.
A
The
FAA
also
released
around
April
first
with
a
deadline
of
the
end
of
April,
or
something
like
that,
an
RFI
that
I
didn't
see
until
too
late
to
respond
entitled
low
altitude,
manned
aviator
participation
in
remote
ID,
and
this
was
the
idea
that,
although
it
has
been
made
clear
that
when
manned
and
unmanned
aircraft
are
operating
in
the
same
airspace,
it
is
the
responsibility
of
the
operator
of
the
unmanned
aircraft
to
be
aware
of
the
manned
aircraft
and
stay
out
of
their
way.
The
manned
aircraft
take
priority.
A
Nonetheless,
some
general
aviation
pilots
may
want
the
additional
situational
awareness
that
is
provided
by
being
able
to
receive
UAS
remote,
ID
I.
Don't
think,
there's
really
any
thought
of
sending
you
a
s,
remote
ID,
as
if
they
were
an
unmanned
aircraft
when
in
fact
they're
manned,
but
just
wanting
to
be
able
to
receive
it
while
onboard
they're.
A
You
know
they're
small
aircraft
and
and
know
what's
going
on
around
in
the
airspace,
then,
interestingly,
several
cabinet-level
agencies
in
the
US
are
pushing
back
against
the
FAA
NPRM
and
I'm,
not
at
liberty
to
disclose
the
details,
but
one
major
agency
went
so
far
as
to
go
through
some
of
the
50,000
plus
comments
that
the
FAA
received
and
call
out
comments,
many
of
them
negative
on
the
FAA
s
proposed
rules
and
and
put
together
a
response
to
the
FAA.
They
said.
Hey
look
at
all
these
comments.
A
This
don't
like
this
particular
aspect
of
your
rules
and
we,
as
you
know,
federal
agency
XYZ,
also
don't
like
that
rule
and
I
just
wanted
to
make
the
point
that
many
of
the
public
comments
that
this
agency
is
supporting
in
their
response
to
the
FAA.
Are
the
same
comments
that
we
made
about
this
information
cannot
be
trusted
and
no
one
can
use
it
to
take
immediate
action
if
they
might
need
to
also
ASTM
has
released
version
0.1
of
their
draft
standard
on
UAS
traffic
management.
They
haven't
released
it
publicly.
A
They
have
merely
circulated
it
within
that
working
group,
and
this
matters
in
that
UTM
and
rid
were
originally
contemplated
as
two
separate
undertakings,
but
over
the
course
of
the
past
year.
Everyone
has
woken
up
and
realized
that
no,
you
can't
really
do
UTM
without
remote
ID
remote
ID
is
the
major
source
of
situational
awareness
in
real-time,
with
in
UTM,
the
European
Aviation
Safety
Agency
released
terms
of
reference
on
their
rulemaking
tasks
2:30
just
three
weeks
ago.
Now
it
is
very
broad
in
scope.
A
It
is
not
just
about
remote
ID,
it's
not
even
focused
on
remote
ID.
It's
a
broad
regulatory
framework
on
how
UAS
are
gonna
fit
into
European
aviation
system.
What's
being
called
you
space,
which
is
more
ambitious
than
what
the
FAA
is
calling
UTM,
because
it
really
does
envision
cohabiting
of
manned
and
unmanned
aircraft
in
the
same
volumes
and
then
finally
you're.
A
Where
is
this
new
thing
which
is
written?
You
know
cognizant
of
the
earlier
one,
but
with
a
different
focus.
We
need
to
look
at
that
and
and
see
what
the
safety
oriented
ie
ie
is
mandating
in
Europe
and,
of
course
you,
okay
doesn't
get
the
mandate
they
get
to
come
up
with
stuff
which
the
EAS
a
or
the
individual
member
states
might
mandate.
So
anybody
want
to
talk
about
any
of
these
things
before
we
move
on.
E
A
G
G
G
A
It
it
appears
from
the
RFI's
contextual
introduction
text
that
they
were
really
contemplating
so-called
general
aviation
aircraft.
You
know
Barnstormer
pilots,
like
my
grandfather,
who
you
know,
may
actually
operate
at
much
lower
than
obviously
an
airliner
does,
except
one
you
know
landing
or
taking
off.
A
I
guess
the
real
point
would
be
that
this
drives
the
safety
issue
even
harder.
If,
if
manned
aircraft
are
gonna,
be
cohabiting
in
the
same
low
altitude,
air
spaces
and
wanting
to
be
aware
of
the
unmanned
aircraft
around
them
and
depending
upon
UAS
remote
ID
to
tell
them,
then
you
know
that
that
pushes
the
the
requirements,
buyer
higher
on
reliability
and
and
other
concerns
like
that
for
free
UAS,
remote
ID.
E
A
The
first
thing
I
want
to
say
before
getting
into
this
slide
is
I.
Am
the
problem
and
I
know
it
in
the
past
month
evangelism
of
what
we
are
doing
overwhelmed
editing
our
actual
drafts.
So
what
we
did
get
done,
andre
provided
some
text
entitled
architectural
implications
of
eásá
requirements
and
that
had
to
do
with
the
fundamental
conflict
between
privacy
and
things
that
are
being
mandated
effective,
Oh
a
week
from
today
in
Europe
and
more
generally,
the
conflict
between
privacy
and
transparency.
A
I
think
some
people
have
have
framed
this
as
a
conflict
between
privacy
and
safety
and
I
really
don't
see
it
that
way.
It's
a
conflict
between
privacy
and
transparency,
as
I
think,
tearless
and
and
Stuart
from
Apple,
pointed
out
back
in
either
Montreal
or
Singapore
I
forget
which,
because
there's
no
there's,
no
question
about
the
public
being
able
to
see
the
ident
fire.
A
The
public
needs
to
see
the
identifier
so
that
if
the
aircraft
is
doing
something
that
the
observer
in
the
general
public
thinks
is
not
a
good
idea,
remember,
the
general
public
can
constitute
authorities,
and
those
authorities
can
then
track
that
identifier
back
to
the
operator
and
have
a
conversation
with
them.
The
question
is:
should
the
public
have
transparency
into
things
beyond
the
identifier
itself
and
then
those
things
beyond
the
identifier
itself,
that
in
many
cases,
will
be
looked
up
in
a
registry?
A
Clearly,
Authority
needs
to
have
access
to
those,
and
presumably
it
is
authorities
that
are
primarily
worried
about
the
safety
aspects
anyway,
next
bullet,
as
Bob
mentioned,
he
became
very
actively
involved
in
the
ANSI
elías
standardization
collaborative
effort
to
produce
a
road
map.
Now
this
thing
is
like
two
or
three
hundred
pages
long,
and
it
had
a
major
section.
That
was
all
the
other
SDOs
that
are
involved
in
setting
any
kind
of
standards
related
to
UAS
and
ASTM
was
in
there.
A
Organizations
were
in
there,
IETF
was
completely
absent,
and
so
I
want
to
thank
our
chairs
and
our
Area
Director
and
Bob
for
fixing
that
then
adam
has
made
some
progress
with
prototypes.
He
has
registration
operations
so
that
a
new
operator
can
get
into
a
registry.
An
operator
who's
already
in
a
registry
can
register
a
new
aircraft.
A
We
took
advantage
of
the
opportunity
as
a
plea
to
them
for
help
with
registration
issues.
Unfortunately,
some
of
the
early
speakers
went
way
over
time
and
I
was
the
last
speaker
and
I
had
to
cover.
You
know
20
minutes
worth
of
material
in
ten
minutes,
but
hopefully
we
will
get
some
help.
There
we've
had
at
least
one
company
that
sells
technology
to
registry
operators.
That
has
been
very
active
in
contacting
Bob
and
me
since
about
what
we
could
do
together.
A
The
last
thing,
which
has
basically
utterly
consumed
me
and
largely
consumed
Bob,
is
ikl,
has
welcomed
us
into
their
trust
framework
study
group,
which
has
three
subordinate
working
groups.
We've
been
very
active
in
their
grain,
which
is
not
about
setting
standards.
It's
about
building
a
network
and
you'll
notice
that
I
said
an
internet
nor
case
for
aviation
ecosystem
by
aviation
ecosystem.
A
I
don't
mean
just
aircraft,
I
mean
aircraft
and
ground
operations
that
support
anything
to
do
with
aviation
and
what
they're
envisioning
is
a
walled
garden
that
will
use
the
Internet
Protocol
suite
and
that
will
have
gateways
back
and
forth
to
the
internet,
but
those
gateways
will
be
very
tightly
locked
down
now.
We've
all
you
know
heard
that
story
before
and
we
know
what's
gonna
happen
anyway.
A
That's
their
vision
is
a
walled
garden,
separate
internet
for
the
aviation
ecosystem.
Then
there's
a
group
called
the
trust,
reciprocity,
operational
needs,
they're,
identifying
use
cases
and
deriving
from
those
use
cases,
requirements
which
they're
feeding
to
the
other
two
working
groups,
grain
and
the
digital
identity.
Working
group,
the
digital
identity
working
group-
is
focused
basically
on
x.509
certificates
for
the
aviation
business,
but
in
the
Tron
working
group.
A
Surprisingly-
and
even
to
the
extent
that
you
know
tail
numbers
painted
on
planes
do
exist
that
doesn't
help
you
if
you
want
to
do
anything
with
digital
twins
in
in
the
network
space,
so
they
want
a
standard
identifier
that
straddles
from
physical
space
to
virtual
space
and
so
we're
we're
participating
in
that.
Okay,
what's
our
backlog,
we
need
to
harmonize
the
requirements.
Terminology
with
ICAO
I,
believe
I,
don't
know
if
Solow
is
on
today,
but
Solow
de
silva
who's.
A
Very
prominent
in
ICAO
has
provided
me
with
the
definitive
definitions
that
allows
redundant,
sorry
that
we
can
stick
in
to
our
requirements
draft
and
then
inputs
I
spent
several
days
marshalling
inputs
from
a
lot
of
sources.
That's
kind
of
my
writing
processes
get
all
the
inputs
all
marshaled
and
then
go
through
them
as
like
a
checklist
and
one
by
one
put
them
into
the
drafts.
A
Well,
unfortunately,
after
I
had
marshaled
all
of
my
inputs,
something
blew
up
in
my
personal
life
and
I
had
to
suspend,
and
so
this
has
not
gone
into
the
drafts,
but
they're
all
marshaled,
and
so
I
can
put
them
in
the
drafts,
along
with
any
further
inputs
that
additional
reviewers
provide
I've
basically
got
like
50
emails.
That
I
would
categorize
as
inputs,
specific
questions,
specific
comments,
specific
issues
raised
that
need
to
be
in
the
drafts
and
that's
you
know
down
selected
from
a
much
larger
number
of
related
emails.
A
A
C
A
From
anybody
who
hasn't
already
done
a
review
of
what's
out
there,
I
prefer
it.
If
you
took
a
look
at
what's
out
there
and
you
know,
send
me
what
you
have
to
say
as
soon
as
possible,
so
that
I
can
reflect
it
and
then
hopefully,
we'll
have
a
couple
of
reviewers
who
have
a
chance
to
take
another
look
at
it
just
prior
to
when
we
were
supposed
to
be
in
Madrid.
A
The
main
issue
that
I'd
like
to
get
into
is
this
whole.
You
know
privacy
versus
transparency
thing
and
there
was
one
particular
requirement
that
a
lot
of
people
in
our
meeting
in
Singapore
or
in
our
subsequent
interims
have
grumbled
about
a
little
bit,
and
this
was
privacy,
three
encrypted
storage.
Well,
let
me
play
what
the
motivator
for
this
is.
We've
all
had
the
experience
of
going
to
some
banks
website
and
receiving
in
our
web
browser
windows,
all
kinds
of
assurance
that
our
privacy
is
being
protected
and,
of
course,
that's
nonsense.
A
A
You
know
we're
all
unhappy
with
us
and
so
I
wrote
this
requirement
that
said,
drip
should
enable
selective,
strong
encryption
of
private
data
at
rest
in
such
a
manner
that
only
authorized
actors
can
recover
it,
but
that
gets
a
little
outside
the
eye.
Atf's
normal
swim
lane,
as
a
number
of
people
have
pointed
out.
So
the
question
is:
do
we
keep
this
requirement
as
written
above?
Do
we
simply
delete
it,
or
do
we
rewrite
it
in
some
manner?
E
E
A
E
It
on
my
own
server
and
then
post
that
URL,
it
is
a
public
document.
Oh
yeah
I'll
do
that
after
this
call,
so
that
people
can
then
look
at
that
for
the
rest
of
you.
Our
NASA
put
out
a
very
intensive
document
for
inter
USS
communications,
which
is
pretty
much
outside
of
the
drip
framework,
but
deals
a
lot
with
various
protocols
and
certificates
in
the
ITF
arena
and
how
communication
between
members
of
the
total
ecosystem
would
communicate
and
thus,
hopefully,
protect
this.
E
I
Storage,
you
could
shift
it
from
a
firm
requirement
into
a
security
considerations
section
towards
the
end
of
the
document,
and
that
would
allow
you
to
caution
that
storage
could
still
be
present
privacy
implications
without
putting
in
the
requirement
in
an
IETF
document
that
goes
slightly
beyond
what
the
IETF
normally
does.
So
that
would
be,
if
you
wanted
to
highlight
it
without
actually
going
the
remit
of
what
the
IETF
does.
But
I
can
put
such
things
in
my
review
also
now
that
you
highlighted
them
here
so.
C
Is
sue
hares
again,
thank
you
for
that
excellent
comment
about
putting
things
in
the
security
section.
One
other
way
to
be
proactive.
That
I
found
useful
in
my
own
working
groups.
Is
you
might
dash
off
a
little
note
to
the
security
ATS
and
say:
look:
we've
got
this
particular
issue.
Here's
our
concept!
C
Can
you
give
some
advice
and
they're
usually
very
helpful
to
work
early
in
the
process,
so
that'd
keep
you
in
the
conversation
with
the
ITF
folks,
then,
if
you
want
to
put
it
in
the
securities
considerations,
they
will
have
ideas
on
what
to
say
if
they
have
some
particular
concept
on
how
they
want
to
work
on
this,
because
this
really
this
is
really
known-
security
right.
It's
you
store
it.
You
do
stuff.
What
do
you
have
with
it?
F
Because,
especially
for
I
think
the
topic
was
the
encrypted
storage,
because
that's
somehow
helpful
to
define
I
mean
that's
part
of
the
system
and
the
security
requirements
are
also
providing,
maybe
some
advices
that
are
how
to
integrate.
What
the
ITF
is
standardizing
into
an
environment.
So
yeah
I
mean
I,
think
I'm
trying
to
answer
Amelia's
questions
which
is
yeah.
We
don't
have.
We
don't
need
to
be
stuck
to
the
ITF
specific
environments,
but
we
can
go
a
little
bit
above.
J
This
is
Steve
Crocker
I
was
on
mute
and
had
trouble
of
finding
the
right
pump
to
push.
No
I,
don't
have
anything
more
to
add.
I've
been
out
of
the
active
participation
in
the
ITF
security
area
for
a
very
long
time.
So,
if
I
have
something
to
say,
I'll
say
it,
but
you
guys
are
proceeding
quite
well
without
me.
F
I'm
hearing
known
so,
if
you're
on
mute,
if
you're,
if
you're
mute,
leaves
and
mute
your
mic
all
the
way
I
can
declare
the
meeting
adjourn
and
thank
you
very
much
for
your
participation.
We're
waiting
for
your
reviews,
I'm
quite
happy
about
how
the
works
is
being
handled
and
I'm
I'm
glad
to
see
that
moving
on.
So
we
would
like
to
keep
the
July
deadline
for
the
working
group
lights.
Cool
July
is
tomorrow,
so
yeah
you
get
yes,
please
get
focused
on
that
and
and
we'll
try
to
make
that
happen.