Re: [Drip] Comment on -arch-22

[[e-mail]]

Hi Jens,

Thank you for sharing these valuable comments.

The intent was not to be centric but we are working under the usual volunteer-based constraints. This point was discussed early in the WG (e.g., https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-interim-2020-drip-01-202004221100/) and this limitation was called out, e.g. (from the write-up of RFC9153):

   Early versions of the document was largely based on the process
   of one region (US). The WG discussed that issue at the time and
   agreed to progress the work based on available inputs/volunteers
   as any other IETF effort. Also, the WG agreed to record this issue
   in an appendix. Since then, the document was enriched with inputs
   and relevant documents from the EU region.

For the first point, I guess you are referring to https://www.easa.europa.eu/document-library/notices-of-proposed-amendment/npa-2021-14. Right?

If you can share more specific comments, this will help the WG and authors assess them.

BTW, you may subscribe to the list because otherwise your messages will be delayed till a moderator validates them.

Cheers,
Med

De : Tm-rid <[e-mail]> De la part de Jens Finkhaeuser
Envoyé : jeudi 24 mars 2022 10:46
À : [e-mail]
Objet : [Drip] Comment on -arch-22

Hi all,

since I am active through my employer in European drone research (ADACORSA and COMP4DRONES projects to name just two), and our speciality here is communications which relates to identification, I read the draft with some interest. I fear a full analysis and review would require more effort than I have managed to put into it.

However, as a comment, it appears that the draft is very strongly related to ASTM F3411, and maybe more so than immediately apparent. I wonder how intentional that is?

I ask for two reasons:

  1.  The EASA regulation referenced is not the most relevant, and potentially a bit out of date; consequently, it is unclear how well this proposal will work as-is in European airspace.
  2.  The assumptions made on communications technologies seem to exclude some drone categories and use cases (which admittedly are also a source of disagreement between some of our research partners).

I'd be happy to bring more perspectives to this, but I am not sure this is appropriate to the draft's intent.

Jens

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.