►
From YouTube: DRIP WG Interim Meeting, 2020-05-27
Description
DRIP WG Interim Meeting, 2020-05-27
B
B
B
So
I'm
starting
the
recording.
Let's
start
this
interim
meeting
page
John-
is
working
so
make
sure
your
video
is
off
I!
Think
it's
fine
mutual
microphones
unless
you're
speaking
yeah
we're
going
to
use
the
the
WebEx
chat
for
the
cue
and
feel
the
blue
sheet
that
are
in
the
SF
ad,
so
the
earth
apart
I,
think
everyone
got
the
the
link
or
maybe
med.
You
can
add
the
link
into
the
algebra.
B
A
B
B
The
document
status
for
the
documents-
and
we
are
essentially
working
on
two
documents,
which
is
the
architecture
I
mean
I,
think
the
bright
older
should
be
requirements
and
the
architecture.
So
that's
the
two
ones.
We
would
like
to
move
forward
before
going
any
further
we're
socializing
Europe
outside
of
the
ITF,
so
maybe
Bob.
You
want
to
say
a
few
word
on
that.
E
E
So
that's
as
a
status
of
the
answer
you
asked
roadmap
and
Morse
to
can
talk
to
the
ICAO
digital
identity.
It's
coming
up.
Actually,
their
first
meeting
is
right.
Now
they
had
to
cancel
over
this,
for
their
major
stakeholders
are
only
available
at
this
time.
Stu
and
I
will
be
joining
their
meeting
next
week,
and
this
is
a
normalization
of
digital
identity
across
aircraft
both
manned
and
unmanned.
F
For
anyone
who's
not
familiar
ICAO
is
the
International
Civil
Aviation
Organization
and
their
members
are
nation-states
of
which
there
is
193.
Currently
they
have
an
effort
called
the
international
aviation
trust
framework,
which
has
three
subordinate
working
groups,
which
is
on
digital
identity,
one
of
which
is
on
trust
reciprocity,
and
one
is
the
global
resilience
region,
interoperable
Network,
which
is
their
own
walled
garden
internet,
on
which
they've
been
working
with
I
can
to
get
a
big
honking.
F
Ipv6
address,
block
and
I've
been
sticking,
my
oar
in,
as
you
might
imagine,
and
fortunately
we
have
other
IETF
representation
there
as
well
Fred
Templin,
although
he
has
obviously
a
very
different
approach
technically
and
we
have
a
great
champion
in
Rob
Seger's
of
the
FAA.
He
is
their
chief
architect
of
what
they
call
next-gen,
which
is
exactly
that.
The
next
generation
of
you
know
how
we
do
aviation.
G
Thanks
good
morning
on
that's
just
to
a
small
observation,
the
name
of
the
ICAO
group,
although
is
to
correctly
explained
the
group's
existing,
but
in
case
of
ICAO,
the
focus
will
be
always
what
we
call
TFS
G
or
trust
framework
stud
group
instead
of
directly
the
identity.
Although
the
working
group
on
a
range
is
the
one
dealing
with
digital
identity
for
many
anomaly,
the
correct
thing.
B
F
This
is
the
registration
operations
workshop
and
they're.
Also
gonna
have
a
panel
discussion
focused
on
DNS
privacy
and
encryption
and
they've
invited
one
of
us
to
participate
in
that
panel.
So
one
thing
I'm
looking
for
today
is:
do
you
all
want
me
to
handle
that
or
is
there
someone
who
would
like
to
step
up
to
be
our
working
groups?
Speaker,
if
you
will,
on
the
panel
focused
on
DNS
privacy
and
encryption.
B
C
C
Our
more
people
from
the
NSF
or
working
group
so
I
think
that
Eric
we
can.
We
can
always
attend
as
individuals
but
I,
don't
think.
As
a
working
group
we
can
present.
I
would
say
a
view
on
this
context.
If
Eric
can
handle
I
would
say
this
request
to
two
people
from
the
NSF
or
it
will
be
really
great
actually.
B
Okay,
so
well,
we
need
to
think
a
little
bit
on
that
too,
to
clarify
that,
but
I
think
it's
really
important.
That
I
mean
the
socialization
work
you're
doing,
and
especially
this
workshop
is
a
very
good
introduction
to
the
architecture
document
where
we
could
see.
I
mean
how
we
can
take
the
leverage
from
DNS,
but
also
what
are
our
specific
requirements
in
it
and
regarding
to
the
DNS
protocol.
That's
one
aspect,
but
the
other
one
is
is
also
the
DNS
architecture.
B
F
F
There's
messages
about
you
know:
where
am
I
and
in
what
there
by
going
and
how
fast
and
we
want
to
bind
all
those
other
messages
to
the
ID
and
then
finally,
approvable
registration
I
want
to
say
not
only
I
am
Stu,
but
I
am
Stu
and
I
am
in
the
you
know,
blue
registry,
as
opposed
to
the
red
or
the
green
registry
or
whatever,
and
the
value
of
that
is.
You
know,
first
off
to
just
prove
that
I
really
am
in
legitimate
registry,
any
legitimate
registry.
F
Slide
these
are
less
fundamental
but
nonetheless
important
the
registries
as
contemplated
by
the
folks
who
are
working
this
problem
before
we
came
along
we're
just
looking
at
oh
great.
This
is
free
text
in
a
registry,
and
eyeballs
can
look
at
it
and
they
can
do
stuff
with
that
information,
whereas
we
think
it's
important
that
software
be
able
to
do
stuff
with
that
information
as
well
Gateway.
This
is
an
idea
that
bob
has
been
working.
F
The
idea
of
crowd-sourced
a
remote
ID
I,
don't
explicitly
reference
crowd
source
for
most
remote
ID
as
such
in
the
requirements,
because
that's
a
you
know
a
solution
approach,
but
I
do
say
that
we
need
to
be
able
to
get
back
and
forth
between
broadcast
and
remote,
ID
and
network
remote
ID,
actually
not
back
and
forth
just
forth,
because
you
would
pipe
broadcast
in
the
network,
wouldn't
make
any
sense
to
fight
the
network
into
broadcast
and
then
I'm
calling
it
finger.
Because
that's
what
it
feels
like
to
me,
but
we
need
a
better
name.
F
We
need
a
way
to
reach
out
and
touch
someone,
in
other
words,
because
this
identifier,
we're
gonna,
make
software
readable,
not
just
human
readable.
We
want
to
be
able
to
take
that
identifier
and
use
it
to
reach
out
and
establish
IP
based
connectivity,
which
is
not
the
same
thing
as
saying
that
we
want
the
identifiers
to
be
an
IP
address.
That
would
be
a
tragic
mistake.
Any
discussion
on
these
three.
F
F
Really,
the
these
messages
are
being
required
by
the
external
standards
and
the
regulators
to
go
out
with
a
certain
frequency
to
be
received
with
a
certain
frequency.
In
other
words,
you
know,
maybe
I
send
them
once
per
second,
and
we
need
to
ensure
that
over
a
period
of
three
seconds
at
least
one
of
those
three
gets
through.
F
Obviously,
mobility
is
central
to
what
we're
doing
here
that
drives
the
requirement
from
multihoming
so
that
you
have
make
before
break
handoff
and
and
just
general
resiliency
multicast
I've
listed
it
as
a
should
I've
received
some
commentary
that
perhaps
it
should
be
a
must
I
was
I
was
leery
of
making
it
a
must,
even
though
I'm
a
huge
ipv6
multicast
fan
and
see
it
as
having
a
lot
of
applicability
and
then
finally
management.
You
know
the
people
who
are
using
this
for
situational
awareness
of
what's
going
on
in
the
airspace.
F
K
F
C
F
We
got
rid
of
a
lot
of
redundancy
between
the
two
documents
which
had
not
been
intentionally
inserted
as
a
copy
and
paste.
It
was
a
result
of
the
two
documents
being
forks
of
what
was
originally
a
single
document.
There
were
some
things
that
were
essentially
unnumbered
requirements
that
were
laid
ads
previously
that
are
now
numbered
acquirements.
Well,
we've
broken
out
the
registry
requirements
as
a
separate
group
rather
than
having
them
lumped
into
the
general
we've
done
a
lot
of
the
harmonization.
That's
discussed,
I've
updated.
Some
of
the
references
to
other
drafts.
F
Andre
Goethe
gave
us
a
discussion
limitations.
Section
Bob
gave
me
a
section
on
the
privacy.
Oops
I've
got
a
redundancy
right
in
there
broadcast
personally
identifiable
information.
Privacy,
section
shouldn't
be
a
second
PII
in
the
architecture.
Draft
Andre
Goethe
has
also
given
me
some
ASCII
art,
which
has
gone
into
both
drafts.
We've
got
additional
authors
now,
Andre
and
Xiao,
and
we've
got
comments
in
there
from
all
of
those
people,
and
probably
a
couple
of
others.
I
tried
to
be
comprehensive
in
listening
them,
but
I've
doubtless
made
in
the
mission
at
some
point.
F
And
on
to
the
next
identifier
requirements,
the
first
five
requirements
are
as
before,
but
her
some
advice
received:
I
added
the
parenthetical
note
on
ID
number
one
length
we
didn't
make
up
this
20
bytes.
This
is
to
fit
into
the
ASTM
F
3411
standard,
which
is
recognized
by
the
civil
aviation
authorities,
and
they
in
turn,
are
attempting
to
fit
into
a
bluetooth
for
advertisement
payload,
which
only
has
a
total
of
25
bytes
and
there's
about
5
bytes
of
overhead
of
the
f34
11
wrappers,
leaving
us
only
20
bytes
for
the
actual
ID
itself.
F
That's
the
only
change
here
in
the
identifier
requirements.
Next
slide
all
right
now,
there's
an
additional
backup
one!
Please
yeah,
there's
an
additional
identifier
requirement
beyond
the
5
we
previously
had.
This
is
unlink
ability
that
had
previously
been
addressed
in
the
text,
but
not
as
a
numbered
requirement,
and
then
we've
got
some.
What
I'm
calling
explanatory
text
that
were?
F
F
Now,
there's
a
lot
of
debate
on
the
privacy
stuff
because
it's
a
it's
a
a
balance
between
privacy
of
the
operator
and
transparency
of.
What's
going
on
in
the
airspace
around
me
as
a
member
of
the
public
who
presumably
has
a
legitimate
right
to
know,
you
know
what
all
this
buzzing
is.
That's
going
on
over
my
head
that
potentially
might
fall
on
my
head,
so
I
guess
all
I
can
do
right.
F
B
F
F
Okay-
these
mostly
were
here
before
as
a
matter
of
fact
they
were
all
here
before,
but
they
were
just
lumped
in
with
general
requirements
and
the
general
requirements
list
was
getting
pretty
long,
and
this
was
actually
a
logical
grouping.
Unfortunately,
I
just
made
more
work
for
Bob
because
he
now
needs
to
go
through
his
drafts
and
and
change
some
of
the
references
they're
in,
but
these
are
the
the
Registry's
requirements
of
which
we
are
thus
far
aware.
C
F
Yeah,
so
bob
has
just
written
recently
a
UAS
rid
draft,
which
is
you
know
my
look
at
it
is
it's
it's
essentially
what
used
to
be
called
within
the
IETF,
an
applicability
statement
pointing
out
other
drafts
that
address
specific
issues
of
the
problem
and
Bob's
regarding
that
is
kind
of
the
clearinghouse
for
where
all
the
goes
in
DES
and
goes
out,
as
of
different
documents
could
go
and
so
I
can
you
know
point
to
that
and
I
began
to
point
to
that
in
the
most
recent
rev
up
requirements
and
architecture.
My.
C
Point
is
that,
if
we,
if
to
avoid
it,
was
a
point
into
and
to
two
other
documents
and
to
generalize
or
to
to
to
sketch
or
to
to
write
the
requirement
in
such
a
way
that
we
are
not
and
I
would
say,
promoting
some
some
solution.
So
that's
which
is
really
stoned
alone.
We
don't
we
don't
need
to
point
to
other
individual
documents
that
would
be
more
cleaner
for
me
for
a
requirement
document.
C
F
B
F
This
slide
is
as
before,
just
as
context,
these
are
the
players,
the
aircraft
themselves,
the
observers,
the
operators,
private
registries
and
DNS,
and
one
of
the
things
that
I
definitely
need
to
do
in
the
requirements.
Draft
is
clarify:
what's
an
operator
versus
a
pilot
in
command
versus
a
remote
pilot
and
so
on.
That
is
reflected
here
in
this
slide
and
it's
reflected,
but
not
explicitly
in
the
requirements.
Draft
and
I
want
to
go
back
to
people
like
ICAO
and
make
sure
that
I
used
their
definitions
rather
than
rolling.
My
own
I
mean
this
is
a.
F
Okay,
this
is
one
of
the
pieces
of
ASCII
art
that
Andre,
provided
it
just
shows
that
the
network
grid
dataflow
may
or
may
not
start
with
the
unmanned
aircraft,
although
there
is
definitely
information
flow
back
and
forth
between
the
unmanned
aircraft
and
its
operator.
But
then
basically,
network
grid
starts
with
the
operators.
F
This
is
unchanged,
this
is
the
list
of
entities
and
most
of
the
entities
pre-exists.
They
are
not
things
that
drip
is
defining.
Even
the
registries
we're
just
adding
detail
that
is
missing
from
the
external
standards.
Everybody
knows
there
need
to
be
registries,
but
everybody
has
punted
what
those
registries
will
look
like,
and
you
know
what
protocols
will
be
used
to
put
information
into
them
and
pull
information
out
of
them.
L
F
Yeah
so
I'm
trying
to
remain
somewhat
generic
between
the
way
the
FAA
wants
to
do
business
and
the
way,
for
instance,
the
eásá
wants
to
do
business
in
a
phase
concept
of
the
world.
Some
of
these
registries
are
owned
and
operated
by
the
FAA
themselves
and
accessible
through,
for
instance,
to
swim.
I.
F
Guess
I
was
just
trying
to
make
the
point
that
there
are
two
fundamental
classes
of
registries,
those
that
will
be
generally
accessible
to
the
public
and
those
that
will
be
accessible
only
with
some
form
of
access
controls.
It's
widely
anticipated
that
some
form
of
registry
function
will
be
performed
by
the
u.s.
s's,
but
that
that
will
not
be
the
end
of
the
story,
because
the
u.s.
s's
are
primarily
there
to
serve
the
UAS
operators
and
other
constituents
may
need
to
turn
to
things
other
than
a
u.s.
to
get
the
services
that
they
need.
E
F
This
is
also
unchanged,
but
it
probably
should
be
changed.
There
may
be
additional
operations
that
are
not
on
this
list,
so
I
would
really
solicit
everybody
to
look
at
this
list
and
and
identify
what's
missing.
I.
H
F
H
Agree
because
the
current
US
there's
there's
no
like
written
statement
that
us
it
should
do
and
how
to
do
that,
whatever
he
does.
It's
this
public,
this
no
length
lacy
program,
but
there's
no
way
host
for
us
to
know
how
to
even
operate
the
services.
The
recipe
is
and
all
the
better
formality
have
provided.
F
H
F
H
E
All
we
can
do
is
hopefully
hold
out
a
hand
to
show
there's
a
way
that
can
make
it
more
open
for
the
UAS
manufacturers
to
work
with
the
across
the
board
with
the
USS,
but
they
don't
have
standards
that
each
UAS
manufacture,
but
there's
something
different
for
each
place.
They
sell
their
equipment,
so
that's
where,
hopefully
we
all
have
to
come
in
and
hold
a
an
offering
hand
to
them.
It's
all.
We
can
do
well.
F
F
It
is
a
governmental
agency
in
other
countries
there
is
one
and
only
one
ASP,
but
it
is
a
private
company
to
which
the
CIA
has
contracted
the
function
and
then
in
still
other
countries
there
are
multiple
NSPS
with
you
know:
territories
if
you
will
that
are
somehow
defined
by
the
CIA
and
so
we're
gonna.
Have
you
know
a
somewhat
similar
situation
here
and
right
now,
most
of
the
u.s.
s
providers
are
trying
to
be
the
one
ring
to
rule
them
all.
So
I
guess
next
slide.
F
Yeah
there
we
go
background
down.
I
identifiers,
f34,
11,
basic
ID
message
gives
us
exactly
that
to
work
with
an
F,
34:11
authentication
message,
even
if
we
were
allowed
to
use
all
ten
pages
of
it.
As
exactly
two
hundred
and
twenty
four
bytes
available,
any
error
control
and
in
the
US
the
FAA
has
said,
you
need
to
have
error
correction,
which
is
not
present
in
the
ASTM
standard
and
the
most
obvious
way
to
do.
F
F
E
Certificate,
they
have
large
message
frames
to
work
in
they're,
doing
a
211
OCB.
They
have
a
large
empty.
U
they
can
deal
with
with
ferret
with
fairly
regular
x.509
certificates.
We
don't
have
that
option
here.
We
have
to
work
within
the
Bluetooth
messages.
Even
Bluetooth
5
frames
will
not
be
able
to
handle
anything
that
I
have
worked
a
fair
bit
with
to
make
small
certificates
I've
gotten
a
DDS,
a
certificates
as
small
as
six
hundred
bytes,
but
then
there's
almost
like
nothing
in
the
in
the
issuer
name
or
or
the
subject
name.
H
This
is
shreya
I,
just
just
want
to
say,
I
think
the
hip
is
standard.
It's
really
good
a
solution
for
the
remote
IDs,
a
quick
update
from
the
HPP,
this
NE
SI,
there's
still
no
solutions
how
to
assign
or
and
how
to
design
the
varieties.
There
are
parts
of
again
stirs
trying
to
become
other
solutions.
H
Have
no
favor,
okay,
the
strong
reference
to
the
STM,
but
there
are
strong
disagreement
regarding
either
STM
was
good
either
just
using
regular
mac
address
or
some
other
solutions.
There's
no
agreement.
Those
in
this
point.
This
is
still
under
discussion
for
each
meeting,
but
I
think
the
only
reason
they
don't
have
any
solutions,
because
there's
no
standard.
Okay,.
I
F
F
Okay,
so
next
slide,
so
a
lot
of
the
definitions
in
the
requirements
draft
our
stuff,
that
I
wrote
and
that's
not
what
they
should
be
I
need
to
go
back
to
a
kale
and
other.
You
know,
authoritative
sources
like
that
and
make
sure
that
our
definitions
are
in
alignment
with
theirs.
I'll
just
spend
a
moment
on.
F
F
Do
we
want
to
move
out
more
on
crowdsource
rid?
Do
we
want
to
get
serious
about
operator
to
pilot
comms?
That's
something
that
I
personally
think
is
very
important
and
it
was
contemplated
I
believe
by
the
aviation
rulemaking
committee
back
in
2017,
but
it
is
not
reflected
in
any
of
the
external
standards
or
notices
of
proposed
rulemaking.
F
F
But
if
I
want
to
communicate
with
him
right
now
and
say,
hey
guy,
you
need
to
leave
that
airspace
that
you're
in,
because
you
may
not
know
this,
but
you
know
we
have
an
emergency
on
our
hands
and
it's
no
longer
the
place
in
time
to
be
to
be
out.
You
know
for
a
Sunday
afternoon,
kite
flying
exercise.
Do
don't
you
mean
opera.
F
E
G
Just
a
question:
when
you
talk
about
this
communication
between
the
observer
in
the
pilot,
what
is
the
context
of
that?
Because
in
civil
aviation
of
this,
this
is
not
allowed
at
all?
What
is
the
context
of
that?
Because
it
looks
like
from
an
aviation
international
civilization
perspective
doesn't
make
any
sense,
but
maybe
you
have
a
next
place
for
that
yeah.
F
Well,
so
remember
we're
not
we're
not
in
the
world
of
air
traffic
control,
we're
in
the
world
of
UAS
traffic
management.
These
things
are
in
much
more
intimate
proximity,
humans
and
sensitive
facilities
and
so
on,
and
it
is
often
necessary
to
you
know,
urgently
communicate
with
with
the
operator
of
an
aircraft,
and
so
the
classic
example
that
I
like
to
give
is:
there's
a
fire
and
I'm
a
fireman
and
I've
responded
to
the
scene
and
I
observe
an
aircraft.
You
know
hovering
in
the
area
where
my
firemen
are
attempting
to
fight
the
blaze.
F
Now
I
don't
know
is
that
aircraft
you
know
from
another
fire
department
that
also
responded
to
the
same
large
blaze
or
is
that
aircraft
from
a
local?
You
know
television,
news
organization,
that's
at
least
going
to
be
professionally
operated,
but
may
not
be
coordinated
with
our
emergency
response
effort,
or
is
that
aircraft
just
some
Gawker?
Who
may
not
even
you
all
that
well
trained
in
how
to
fly
and
he's
going
to
get
in
the
way
and
cause
further
danger?
F
For
my
my
firefighters
right,
so
I'm,
an
aircraft
system,
remote
identification
alone,
allows
me
to
discriminate
which
of
those
three
classes
he
is
in.
But
let's
say
that
he
is
in
the
second
or
third
class
he's.
F
But
then,
even
if
it's
trustworthy
information,
if
it's
merely
a
registry
database,
that
I
can
look
into
with
human
eyeballs
on
on
free
text
on
screen.
And
then
you
know,
take
my
cell
phone
and
call
somebody
and
hope
that
they
answer
and
hope
that
they
can
do
something
about
it.
That's
not
very
effective
right,
whereas
if
I
can
immediately
establish
you
know
a
strongly
mutually
authenticated
and
and
confidential
end
to
end
IP
flow
between
me
and
the
pilot
in
command,
then
perhaps
we
can,
you
know,
respond
more
appropriately
to
the
situation.
F
The
other
scenario
that
I
like
to
use
as
an
example
is
air
defense.
If
I'm
an
air
defense
operator
and
you
blunder
into
an
area
where
you
shouldn't
be
you'd,
probably
appreciate
my
contacting
you
and
asking
you
to
exit
before
I
simply
shoot
you
down
and
the
UAS
rid
stuff
other
than
the
original
aviation
rulemaking
committee.
Recommendations
just
doesn't
address
that.
G
I
understand
where
you're
coming
from
is
to,
but
you
know
in
a
certain
moment:
UTM,
although
we
keep
saying
the
UTM
and
USS
they'll
be
isolated.
No,
it's
not.
They
will
interact
with
atm
the
air
traffic
management
and,
as
you
correctly
mentioned,
with
the
logistics
providers,
if
you
allow
simple
observe
to
contact
directly
pilot,
whether
it
is
you
were,
you
can
provoke
of
a
Wild
West,
because
you
know
an
observer
is
somebody
that
in
principle,
any
observer
I'm
not
talking
about
the
authorized
observers,
who
has
a
right
equipment
to
identify
the
UAS.
G
G
This
will
not
be
acceptable
because
it
goes
well
beyond
the
principles
that
we
follow
in
aviation,
and
my
understand
is
that
the
remote
ID
is
exempt
to
allow
private
people
to
take
action
of
contact
and
other
observers
who
are
just
observers
without
any
police
power
to
see
and
communicate
with
somebody
else
who
will
take
the
action
but
not
themselves
contacting
director
pilots,
because
you
may
generator
a
Wild
West
on
that.
But
no.
F
Yeah
right
there
Gen
6
dynamically,
establishing
with
triple
a
per
policy
these
communications.
The
idea
is
it's
not
just
that
that
Joe
Sixpack
can
can
contact
a
pilot
and
you
know
create
a
distraction
from
his
safe
operation
of
his
aircraft.
This
is
the
idea
that
a
public
safety
observer,
for
instance,
or
an
air
defense
operator,
for
instance,
can.
F
Reach
out
and
if
he
has
the
appropriate
credentials
required
by
you,
know
the
policy
of
the
CAA
in
that
particular
jurisdiction,
then
that
would
enable
the
communication,
because
if
we
don't
get
a
direct
contact
after
you
know
the
satisfaction,
the
policy
has
been
verified.
You
know
for
that
contact
to
take
place.
The
latency
requirements
are
simply
not
going
to
be
satisfiable
right
if
I,
as
the
firefighter
have
to
talk
to
the
tower,
and
then
the
tower
in
turn
has
to
talk
to
the
operator.
F
F
That's
that's
why
I'm
trying
to
extrapolate
from
the
traditional
approach,
something
that
will
satisfy
the
latency
requirements
of
the
you
know
very
short
distances
that
are
involved
with
the
UAS,
but
definitely
we
can't
just
have
Joe
Sixpack
bugging
a
pilot
and
and
interfering.
You
know
with
this
paying
attention
to
the
safe
operation
of
his
aircraft.
B
L
I
think
what'll
be
really
helpful.
Any
discussion
here
is
that
we
actually
trying
to
develop.
Consider
in
these
cases
that
flash
out
the
practical
environment
that
we
see
that
such
communications
policy,
these
use
cases,
they
will
actually
island
validated
policies,
not
in
their
case
for
now
politic
development,
but
it
also
will
identify
whether
the
technology,
maybe
architectures,
have
to
manage
that
appropriate
I
think
you
could
talk
around
Justin
for
hours
and
hours,
I.
Think
I
think
we
could
certainly
in
this
and
didn't
do
the
time
money
invest
in
action.
L
F
F
Right
there
in
progress,
yeah
we
are,
we
are
not
in
a
position
to
get
serious
about
observer.
The
pilot
comes
other
than
in
the
sense
that
yeah
we
should.
We
should
document
some
use
cases
to
justify.
You
know
why
this
is
a
useful
function,
and
if
we
find
that
there
are
no
such
use
cases,
then
we
abort
I
think
we
will
find
that
there
are
such
use
cases,
but
I
guess.
That
would
be
that.
That
would
be
that
the
next
task
in
that
area
is
is
the
use
cases
rather
than
the
protocols.
F
F
My
last
triplets
there
is
a
discussion
limitations
section
that
andre
has
authored
and
I
just
stuck
it
in
the
requirements.
Draft
without
comment
really
and
I
I,
don't
know
where
we
want
to
go
with
that.
Obviously,
there's
a
whole
set
of
related
drafts
that
we
need
to
organise
in
some
coherent
form
and
we
could
still
use
more
help.
I'm.
B
Just
a
clarification,
and
when
we're
talking
about
communications
is
that
I
mean
someone
talking
directly
to
to
the
pilot,
saying:
how
are
you
what's
your
name
or
or
if
that's
just
a
message
you
you
are
in
a
private
zone
or
I
mean
your
pre
format,
messages.
F
Partly
because
I
have
a
tendency
to
get
the
cart
before
the
horse
here
with
solution
space,
because
hip
allows
me
to
establish
a
strongly
mutually
authenticated
and
encrypted
IP
flow
that
can
contain
arbitrarily
anything
that
IP
can
carry.
I
wasn't
worrying
about
exactly
what
someone
might
choose
to
send,
be
it
a
small
dictionary
of
predefined
messages,
or
maybe
it's
even
a
voice
over
IP,
you
know,
sip
call,
okay,.
B
H
Just
I
just
wanted
to
say
that
you're
thinking
in
the
general
aviation
I'm
the
the
help
to
communicate
with
there
between
different,
very
properties.
It's
changing.
Quite
a
lot.
I
mean
five
years
ago
right
after
four
flights,
getting
very
popular
in
the
general
aviation
there
are
so
many
products
came
out.
Can
allow
me
all
to
show
the
EDSP
data
without
etcd
a
moment,
I
think
like
Stratos
right.
You
can
actually
see
you
where
the
aircraft
is
without
even
talking
to
a
TC
I.
H
Think
the
same
scenario
can
be
applied
with
the
UAS
me
who
ever
adopt
your
remote
ID
techniques
right
and
then
things
like
for
flight
or
Stratos
ticking
talk
to
remote
I
did
provider
either
from
us
or
from
from
a
third
party.
You
can
actually
quite
the
data
and
show
their
shoulders
us
positions
or
other
informations
on
there
for
flight.
B
So
before
Adam
is
going
into
the
queue
we
preach,
the
the
top
of
the
hour
so
I
mean
we
can
continue
that
discussion
a
little
bit.
But
if
you
have
to
leave
I'm,
just
reminding
you
to
register
your
name
to
the
blue
sheet,
please
so
Adam
hi.
D
So
I
also
want
to
make
a
comment
on
so
Bob
was
messaging
in
the
WebEx
on
USS
policy
and
what
have
you
with
these
observer
to
pilot
communications
and
it
comes
back
to
a
point
that
was
brought
up
earlier,
I
believe
by
yeah,
actually
by
you
so
I
that
you
know
we
don't
have
any
USS
people
in
the
call-
and
this
is
something
another
limitation
and
another
feature
we'd
have
to
impose
on
them
as
Bob's
pointing
out
the
USS
would
be
the
one
that
be
kind
of
mediate
to
say:
oh,
no,
no,
no!
D
H
Also,
we
can
do
with
all
the
EVs
any
involvement
like
the
flow
flyness
toilets,
not
even
talk
to
dtc,
and
we
just
acquired
on
EDSP
data
from
the
ground
right.
So
whoever
adopt
a
temperature
standard,
you
can
start
their
own.
You
know
remote
ID,
servers
or
providers.
Then
the
other
product
is
carry
the
data.
E
E
F
E
F
C
C
What
we
are
expected
to
deliver
so
by
the
next
bit
for
the
virtual
entry
for
the
virtual
ITF
we
are
requesting
I
would
say
more
longer
slots,
so
we
assigned
some
slots
for
other
drafts
to
be
to
be
presented,
but
for
the
the
next
interim
meeting
the
ones
will
be
in
June.
We
will
continue
in
this.
We
are
focusing
on
the
requirement
and
the
architecture
draft
and
we
don't
need
to
wait
until
the
interim
meetings
to
have
discussion
on
them.
So
I
really
hope
and
invite
all
the
participants.
C
So
if
there
are
any
suggestion
proposal
and
so
on,
to
go
the
money
list
to
show
them
and
2
2
and
2
as
we
can,
we
can
make
some
progress
that
we
have
some
versions
that
are
really
stable.
The
requirement
draft
I
would
say
it's
I
would
go
track,
but
the
architecture
for
me
require
more
to
focus
on.
It
can
have
something
which
is
really
I
would
say
that
can
be
used
by
other
under
people
who
are
working
on
the
on
this
area
and,
for
instance,
if
people
wants
to
propose
some
change
request
to
GBP.
C
C
B
So
yeah,
so
basically
before
closing
that
meeting
I
think
we're
going
to
close
this
meeting
in
a
few
minutes.
So
I
think
the
discussions
were
very
interesting
and
I
I
think
those
intermitting
are
quite
successful.
So
we
will
continue
to
that.
We
sent
a
request
for
a
session
during
the
ITF,
the
next
ITF
meeting,
so
in
June,
end
of
June
or
no
end
of
July.
B
B
As
the
man
mentioned,
we
would
like
to
really
move
those
requirement
and
architecture
draft
forward
as
soon
as
possible.
So
it's
it
was
quite
important
that
we
communicate
those
draft
to
other
organizations
we
get
feedbacks
and
yeah
and
that
we
we
reach
a
consensus
that
we
believe
it's
ready
quite
soon.
H
C
We
can
see
that
we
wanted
to
have
I
would
say
an
aggressive
schedule
for
for
having
stable
versions
and
for
for
having
them
into
working
plan
school
and,
if
I,
remember
well.
What
we
have
agreed
is
to
have
something
by
by
end
of
July.
So
if
we
want
to
maintain
at
milestone,
it
would
be
really
we
will
do
to
to
put
more
I
would
say
more
important
it
and
to
so
that
we
can
have
something
she's
really
stable.
C
C
C
H
E
D
You
both
hey-
this
is
Adam
I
agree
with
Bob.
You
know
I've
always
seen.
This
working
group
is
a
bit
unusual,
I
guess
in
the
sense
that
you
know
we're
looking
out
an
outside
and
another
thing
and
we're
seeing
gaps
that
we
can
fill
with
IETF
protocols
so
like
we
can,
we
can
move
much
faster
than
they
can
I.
Think
that's
been
evident
over
the
past
couple
months
that
we're
moving
much
quicker
than
they
are
and
I
agree
with
med
that
we
are
ahead
of
them.