Re: [Tm-rid] Review of draft-drip-arch-02 w.r.t. RFC6973, RFC8280 and other

[Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

Le 08/07/2020 à 15:02, Robert Moskowitz a écrit :
> 
> 
> On 7/8/20 8:49 AM, Alexandre Petrescu wrote:
>>
>>
>> Le 07/07/2020 à 19:26, Robert Moskowitz a écrit :
>>> ANSI/CTA 2063-A
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>> I downloaded it.
>>
>> But it says "Unmanned", whereas a flying taxi would be manned even if 
>> that person would not control the flight.
>>
>> Maybe they'll change the title of the document, or maybe the UAM 
>> inclined will invent a new ID for 'manned but not in control' or 
>> something like that.
> 
> For now, ICAO sees UAM as Unmanned and will use the 2063 numbering 
> scheme.  They are unmanned in the sense of no pilot on board.  If there 
> IS a pilot on board, then they are manned aircraft and fall under those 
> regulations and numbering. (actually I believe testing to date have been 
> onboard pilot air taxis.)
> 
> ICAO (Saulo needs to join in) has augmented the paper certification 
> process for manned aircraft with a digital process.  Manned flying taxis 
> will be in this category unless a new one is created.
> 
> Then you get should a UAM, even manned participate in the Broadcast 
> Remote ID messaging for safety purposes?  I would think so, but this is 
> still really an unclear area.
> 
> definitely they will not participate in the automotive V2X ecosystem, 
> despite conversations over on the ITS list.  Oh, they may listen in, but 
> what messaging impacts them?

Can we expect an UAM vehicle to use 802.11-OCB mode (earlier known as 
802.11p) at 5.9GHz?

Or is it some other IP-able link layer technology?

Or is it a non-IP link?

Alex

> 
> Bob
>