Re: [Drip] Potential name change for draft-ietf-drip-rid

[Robert Moskowitz <[e-mail]>]

On 8/5/21 12:23 PM, Adam Wiethuechter wrote:
> Comments inline.
>
> --------
> 73,
> Adam T. Wiethuechter
> Software Engineer; AX Enterprize, LLC
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Tm-rid <[e-mail]> on behalf of Robert Moskowitz 
> <[e-mail]>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 3, 2021 5:50 PM
> *To:* Card, Stu <[e-mail]>
> *Cc:* [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> *Subject:* Re: [Drip] Potential name change for draft-ietf-drip-rid
> I vote for DET.
>
> DIT went out with Morse Code.
>
> <atw>
> Rude! Morse code is still valuable! However, I agree with the 
> collision. I also vote for DET - I propose it for something different.

I could never get my Morse speed up to 5WPM to pass my test; I blame my 
dsylexia.  Need something to blame.  So I know my dits and daws. Was 
also important in teaching data encoding along with Baudot; with it 
shift up and shift down characters!

>
> Myself and Stu have worked out a way to condense the HHIT into 
> something somewhat more human readable that does not clog up screen 
> real estate as much as 128 bits does. It is the following format:
>
> RAA Tag <delim> HDA Tag <delim> Subset HHIT Hash
>
> The Tags are strings up to 6 characters long that can be set by the 
> Registries to be used by device for display purposes. The third 
> section ("Subset HHIT Hash") can be variable length with a minimum of 
> 4 characters. We used the last 4 of the HHIT for testing purposes but 
> it could be something else. I propose this basic concept be placed 
> into your draft in a short appendix (which I can write up). I also 
> propose this is what is called the DET.
>
> NOTE: this is ONLY for display purposes on devices; NOT for sending 
> the UAS ID - that is still the DRIP Entity ID.

this is worth serious consideration for the DNS representation of DET.  
Something else that needs general agreement.


> </atw>
>
> On 8/3/21 5:10 PM, Card, Stu wrote:
>> Correction:
>> DRIP Identity Tag (DIT)
>> or
>> DRIP Entity Tag (DET)
>>
>> Intriguing that "entity" is embedded in "identity"... checking 
>> etymology now...
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 3, 2021, 17:05 Card, Stu <[e-mail] 
>> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>
>>     DRIP Entity Tag (DIT)?
>>
>>     On Tue, Aug 3, 2021, 4:57 PM Robert Moskowitz
>>     <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>
>>         Other than I don't think I was the one that came up with
>>         "RID"....
>>
>>         an acronym is valuable.  It does not need to be a TLA, an FLA
>>         will work.  ;)
>>
>>         Also important to be pronounceable.  I really struggled with
>>         some IBM used back in the big iron days!
>>
>>         Also we are proposing the DRIP Entity ID to be used in many
>>         places in the UAS/USS architecture.  One name to bind them all?
>>
>>         Unmanned Aviation Entity ID  UAEID   Too many vowels.  Plus
>>         "UAE" is a nation.  hmm more daydreaming needed.
>>
>>         Also "Aviation" for inclusiveness and "Aircraft" provide the
>>         same first letter to the acronym with potential acronym
>>         expansion errors.
>>
>>         I have not looked at all uses of "RID" in drip-req, but at
>>         least the first few follow your point. drip-arch will have to
>>         be checked as well.
>>
>>         But your point is a good one and I will see what I can come
>>         up with.
>>
>>         On 8/3/21 4:21 PM, Card, Stu wrote:
>>>         Please don't use the acronym "RID" to refer to the identity
>>>         or the identifier. The regulators & other SDOs use it to
>>>         refer to "remote identification" [and tracking] as a
>>>         _process_. ASTM F3411 refers to the identifier of interest
>>>         as the "UAS ID" although that is also a misnomer as it
>>>         uniquely identifies not the whole UAS but only the UA
>>>         itself. Can't we just call our specific subtype the "DRIP
>>>         Entity ID" as in the F3411 revision, or "DRIP [entity]
>>>         identifier" as in our own IETF DRIP requirements draft?
>>
> <atw>
> I will use here to discuss what I think this draft should be called. 
> First +1 to what Stu said here; RID is a process to all the regulators 
> the identifier ("UAS ID") is used in that process. I also +1 Stus 
> comment to just use the name "DRIP Entity ID" in our drafts.
>
> I felt that at the end of 111 we agreed that we call the draft: "The 
> DRIP Entity ID as a UAS Session ID". This way the draft is only about 
> the DRIP Entity ID, how to generate it, its properties and general 
> usage within F3411 (as a Session ID). The draft would also point (I 
> believe as MUSTs) to Authentication and Registry documents to explain 
> the technical details behind supporting it and satisfying various 
> other number requirements (not related to ID but REG).
>
> With this the document can then act as the Session ID Means of 
> Compliance (MOC) that we would need to forward to the FAA for review 
> and acceptance. Remember the FAA has no method of Session IDs at this 
> time and is soliciting input on it - however they want to be sure it 
> will support their requirements. This will mostly likely apply to 
> other CAAs as well and instead of creating an MOC for each one we can 
> just create a baseline (using the existing uas-rid document) and if 
> needed create Informational RFCs that amend the document for a given CAA.
> </atw>
>>
>>>         On Tue, Aug 3, 2021, 3:30 PM Robert Moskowitz
>>>         <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>>>         wrote:
>>>
>>>             During our IETF111 session we covered changing what is in
>>>             draft-ietf-drip-rid.
>>>
>>>             Over the past few versions, drip-rid absorbed other
>>>             drafts and perhaps
>>>             it is time to shed a few things.
>>>
>>>             Sec 6 on DRIP Proofs is really for draft-ietf-drip-auth
>>>             and will be
>>>             replaced with pointers to that draft.
>>>
>>>             In a couple places there is the HHIT registry discuss. 
>>>             Noteably sec
>>>             4.5.  this should point to
>>>             draft-wiethuechter-drip-registries, which
>>>             should be adopted by the wg.
>>>
>>>             drip-rid should be focused on the Remote ID itself.  In
>>>             fact in the
>>>             revision to ASTM F3411, we got in that Session ID type 1 is:
>>>
>>>             Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Drone Remote
>>>             Identification
>>>             Protocol (DRIP) entity ID.
>>>
>>>             So I propose to change the title in the draft to:
>>>
>>>             Unmanned Aircraft System Remote Entity ID (UAS RID)
>>>
>>>             And not change the draft name.
>>>
>>>             Comments?  I don't see any changes need in the Abstract
>>>             for this.
>>>
>>>             Thanks
>>>
>>>             -- 
>>>             Tm-rid mailing list
>>>             [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>             https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tm-rid
>>>             <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tm-rid>
>>>
>
>

-- 
Standard Robert Moskowitz
Owner
HTT Consulting
C:248-219-2059
F:248-968-2824
E:[e-mail]

There's no limit to what can be accomplished if it doesn't matter who 
gets the credit