Re: [Tm-rid] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on charter-ietf-drip-00-01: (with COMMENT)

[Robert Moskowitz <[e-mail]>]

Stu,

Mailing list changes are done by the IETF admin and we will be notified 
of the change.  It will occur, most likely, when Eric finishes all your 
prior points.  :)

On 2/24/20 8:32 AM, Card, Stu wrote:
> Did Saulo DaSilva's suggestion about adding ICAO along with FAA and 
> EASA make the cut?
> Did Adam's proposed sentence clarifying UAS RID identifier properties 
> satisfy everyone?
> Does our charter now address all of the points that the commenters and 
> IESG wanted?
> IOW, is our charter now fully accepted, so that our WG is not merely 
> _conditionally_ approved?
> If so, should we move our mailing list from [e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]> to [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>?
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 5:20 PM Wiethuechter, Adam 
> <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>     OLD: "These requirements will also include those associated to the
>     UAS Identifier that need to both meet some constraints as well as
>     some specific properties."
>
>     NEW: "These requirements also include showing that new or adapted
>     identifiers from existing protocols conform and meet the
>     specifications to be certified as a UAS ID."
>
>     How is this everyone?
>
>     On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 5:13 PM Eric Vyncke (evyncke)
>     <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>         Adam
>
>         Would you mind proposing a sentence to replace the existing one ?
>
>         *From: *"Wiethuechter, Adam"
>         <[e-mail]
>         <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>         *Date: *Friday, 21 February 2020 at 23:10
>         *To: *Eric Vyncke <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>         *Cc: *"[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>"
>         <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>,
>         "[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>"
>         <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>, Michael
>         Richardson <[e-mail]
>         <mailto:[e-mail]>>, Robert Moskowitz
>         <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>         *Subject: *Re: [Tm-rid] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on
>         charter-ietf-drip-00-01: (with COMMENT)
>
>         This (the second point) is mentioning that the UAS Identifier
>         has its own set of constraints and properties that it must
>         hold - defined and regulated by parties outside the IETF. For
>         example UAS IDs are constrained to 20 bytes.
>
>         So the requirements documents produced by the WG will also
>         specify other identifiers, created new or adapted from an
>         existing protocol (this is exactly with the HHITs are from
>         HIP), that conform and meet the specifications to be certified
>         as a UAS ID.
>
>         Probably not the exact words to use, but I think it clears up
>         the confusion?
>
>         On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 4:48 PM Eric Vyncke (evyncke)
>         <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>             Any taker to answer Alissa's second point ? about what is
>             the subject (see below) ?
>
>             I would have loved to finalize the charter this week and
>             this is the only open point left before approval
>
>             -éric
>
>             On 20/02/2020, 10:28, "Tm-rid on behalf of Eric Vyncke
>             (evyncke)" <[e-mail]
>             <mailto:[e-mail]> on behalf of
>             [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>                 Alissa and Ben,
>
>                 Thank you for your comments and let's work to fix all
>             ambiguities...
>
>                 TM-RID list members can you please comment on Alissa &
>             Ben's reviews ?
>                 - Alissa: we need to expand UAS as "Unmanned Aircraft
>             System" at first use even if only to avoid being ambiguous
>                 - Alissa: what is the subject of the "need to": is it
>             "these requirements" or "those associated to the UAS
>             identifier" or "UAS identifier", let's be clear on this
>                 - Ben: indeed milestone are quite optimistic...
>             adoption should be target and request for publication 6
>             month later ?
>                 - Ben: should RID be trustworthy (my guess is yes of
>             course as this is the main purpose of this group)
>
>                 The DRIP charter will be reviewed today at 15H00 UTC,
>             so, a prompt reply from the proponents of the list will be
>             appreciated
>
>                 -éric
>
>                 On 20/02/2020, 06:10, "Tm-rid on behalf of Alissa
>             Cooper via Datatracker" <[e-mail]
>             <mailto:[e-mail]> on behalf of
>             [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>                     Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot
>             position for
>                     charter-ietf-drip-00-01: No Objection
>
>                     When responding, please keep the subject line
>             intact and reply to all
>                     email addresses included in the To and CC lines..
>             (Feel free to cut this
>                     introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
>
>                     The document, along with other ballot positions,
>             can be found here:
>             https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-drip/
>
>
>
>             ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>                     COMMENT:
>             ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                     Two questions about this:
>
>                     "* Requirements: the WG is expected to provide an
>             informational document that
>                     lists the technical requirements for applying IETF
>             protocols to the UAS Remote
>                     Identification (UAS RID) - that is the system for
>             identifying UA during flight
>                     by other parties. These requirements will also
>             include those associated to the
>                     UAS Identifier that need to both meet some
>             constraints as well as some specific
>                     properties."
>
>                     Is UA distinct from UAS?
>
>                     The last sentence doesn't parse properly for me.
>             What is the subject of "need
>                     to"? Is this saying "requirements ... need to ...
>             meet some constraints ...
>                     [and meet] some specific properties"? What does
>             that mean?
>
>
>                     --
>                     Tm-rid mailing list
>             [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>             https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tm-rid
>
>
>                 --
>                 Tm-rid mailing list
>             [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>             https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tm-rid
>
>
>             -- 
>             Tm-rid mailing list
>             [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>             https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tm-rid
>
>
>
>         -- 
>
>         73's,
>
>         Adam T. Wiethuechter
>
>         AX Enterprize, LLC
>
>
>
>     -- 
>     73's,
>     Adam T. Wiethuechter
>     AX Enterprize, LLC
>
>     -- 
>     Tm-rid mailing list
>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tm-rid
>