* WGs marked with an * asterisk has had at least one new draft made available during the last 5 days

Drip Status Pages

Drone Remote ID Protocol (Active WG)
Int Area: Éric Vyncke, Erik Kline | 2020-Feb-21 —  

IETF-110 drip minutes

Session 2021-03-09 1700-1900: Room 3 - drip chatroom


minutes-110-drip-00 minutes

          DRIP IETF 110
          # Agenda
          * Agenda bashing 5min
            * Note well, logistics, and introduction
          * DRIP Architecture: WGLC Summary & Next Steps (Shuai)     30 min
          * Solutions & Implementations
            * DRIP Implementation Update (Andrei) 30 min
            * UAS Remote ID (draft-ietf-drip-rid)  (Bob) 15 min
            * DRIP Authentication Formats (draft-ietf-drip-auth) (Adam) 15 min
            * DRIP Registries (draft-wiethuechter-drip-registries) (Adam) 15 min
          * Open Mic 5 min
          * Closing 5 min
          # Working Group status
          * WGLC
          * WG documents
          * WGLC received multiple comments
          * How do we want to use Git Hub ?
            * we need to be able to:
              * track every issue raised
              * to have people participating in the review
          * interim meetings ?
          * XMLv3 submission
          # Note on XMLv3 submission
          ## kdrfc
          If you say
          kdrfc -3chi draft-x.md
          You get:
          — draft-x.txt
          - draft-x.html
          - draft-x.v2v3.xml
          …and an idnits report.
          Submit the draft-x.v2v3.xml at https://datatracker.ietf.org/submit/
          (Do NOT submit the .txt at the same time — that will be regenerated.)
          ## online tools
          To convert a markdown file (specifically kramdown) to v3 XML, you can
          use the converter available here:
          Please select
          Input type: kramdown
          Other: convert v2 to v3 XML
          v3 FAQ:
          (Details on what to do after converting to v3:
          xml2rfc mailing list:
           # minutes
           commenced at 16:02 UTC
           # chairs introduction
           Daniel M. proposed putting reviewer comments into GitHub
           and discussing them on the mailing list; there were no objections
           but Shuai Zhao suggested making them pull requests or open issues
           rather than just text in the docs
           Daniel also recommended use of xml2rfc v3;
           Bob M. pointed out that our current drafts are already there
           # Shuai Z. presented Architecture draft progress
           Shuai Z. raised the questions:
            - which sections 4-6 belong there?
            - should we use normative language there?
           As -arch is in WGLC, need WG consensus on how to proceed.
           Bob M. highlighted the value of -arch _as is_
           in exposing IETF DRIP work to other SDOs and stakeholders.
           Stu C. pointed out that CS-RID Finders and SDSPs
           are the only additional entities we are introducing
           into the DRIP arch. vs the pre-defined UAS RID arch.
          Éric V. clarified that his main concerns were use of normative language
          in an informational document and the need to maintain consistency between
          -arch and solution space detail docs. BCP14 template will be removed
          and all normative language is already replaced.
           Daniel M. suggested a middle ground, where -arch
           introduces our solution approach and its basic entities,
           but relegates details to other documents; Eric V. concurred.
           Adan W. expressed mixed feelings about including
           CS-RID section 6 as it is UAS RID specific.
           Bob M. suggested softening the language re: solution approach
           to present it as _an_ approach vs _the_ approach.
           Daniel M. gave a specific example of how to do that:
           make Section 4 not HHIT as DRIP ID but rather DRIP ID
           with HHIT as an illustration and our initial choice.
           Shuai Z. wrapped up, getting us back on schedule.
           # Andrei G. presented implementation progress
           Andrei G. explained that HIPv2 imposes new requirements
           on HIP implementations (including specifically OpenHIP),
           and DRIP imposes new requirements not only on implementatons
           but also on ORCHID creation and interpretation specifications.
           New ORCHID method has shorter hash -> greater probability
           of collision -> hopefully detected in registration of
           _Hierarchical_ HIT.
           Andrei G's students have made great progress implementing DRIP
           on UA-mountable Raspberry Pi transmitters
           and Observer Android receivers.
           Andrei G. warned that vendors' implementations
           of Bluetooth 5 do not all make the features needed available to us
           and of WiFi do not all make broadcast reception available to us.
           Andrei G's students also prototyped a DRIP registry.
           Stu C. proposed a test of the interoperability of the
           implementations developed independently by Andrei G's students
           and at the New York Unmanned Aircraft Systems Test Site:
           Daniel M. inquired of our AD how helpful that might be;
          Eric V. responded that is always helpful to have 2+ interoperating
          implementations documented somewhere (wiki, ...);
           Bob M. reminded us of the short broadcast range vs tele-hackathons;
           Shuai Z. said we need an open platform for widespread experimentation.
           # Bob M. presented DRIP UAS RID draft progress
           Bob M. updated everyone on regulatory and external SDO changes.
           Bob M. introduced, from the FAA "final" rule,
           the concept of "broadcast module",
           its requirement to us ANSI/CTA-2063-A serial numbers
           (rather than Session IDs), motivating encoding HHITs
           (as our first DRIP Entity Identifiers) as such.
           Daniel M. inquired why FAA had dropped all requirements
           for cybersecurity; Bob M. & Stu C. gave short answers.
           Bob M. requested review: of Appendices E and F as he merges them
           to address replays; and of DNS examples, to catch typos, and
           to accomodate non-AERO domains for other applications.
           Bob M. requested WGLC after those items are resolved.
           # Adam W. & Michael P. presented Authentication & Registry progress
           Adam W. reported a pause in some DRIP work while ASTM F38.02
           updates F3411 to ensure compliance with the FAA rule.
           Adam W. and Michael P. are identifying the necessary
           Repository Object Identifiers (ROIDs) and data elements.
           Michael P. is standing up a prototype DRIP registry
           using the .cz open source FRED code.
           Michael P. proposed a hybrid DNS heirarchy for DRIP,
           involving both a common TLD and country code ccTLDs.
           Daniel M. inquired regarding overlap of information
           among multiple registries; Michael P. answered at high level.
           Michael P. illustrated concepts using automotive parallels.
           Adam W. introduced the 5 (so far known) unique ID keys
           involved in cross-registry lookups.
           Daniel M. inquired about the role of DNS:
           Adam W. deferred specific use-case dependent answers;
           Stu C. gave our main DNS use case of finding the
           specific registries in which other information resides.
           Shuai Z. inquired about the ability to look up
           dynamic data, such as flight plans ("operational intents"):
           Stu C. gave a "textbook" answer based on the current FAA rule;
           Bob M. indicated that there is discussion among regulators
           and SDOs but not yet any consensus in this area.
           Michael P. alerted us to EU regulatory activity
           relevant to cybersecurity of aviation related data
           and domain registries, including supply chain issues.
           Daniel M. inquired about other EU regulations,
           esp. pertaining to data privacy; Michael P. answered
           that they are all interconnected and require attention.
           # chairs concluded session
           Daniel M. solicited input on interims etc.
           Adam W. said monthly interims could improve
           and accelerate at least the registries draft.
           Med B. reminded all of open WGLC on -arch.
           Meeting adjourned at 17:56 UTC.
           These notes taken mostly by Stu C.,
           who solicits corrections.

Generated from PyHt script /wg/drip/minutes.pyht Latest update: 24 Oct 2012 16:51 GMT -