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

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 tm-rid@ietf.org to drip@ietf.org
?

On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 5:20 PM Wiethuechter, Adam <
adam.wiethuechter@axenterprize.com> 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) <evyncke@cisco.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Adam
>>
>>
>>
>> Would you mind proposing a sentence to replace the existing one ?
>>
>>
>>
>> *From: *"Wiethuechter, Adam" <adam.wiethuechter@axenterprize.com>
>> *Date: *Friday, 21 February 2020 at 23:10
>> *To: *Eric Vyncke <evyncke@cisco.com>
>> *Cc: *"tm-rid@ietf.org" <tm-rid@ietf.org>, "drip-chairs@ietf.org" <
>> drip-chairs@ietf.org>, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>,
>> Robert Moskowitz <rgm@htt-consult.com>
>> *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) <evyncke@cisco.com>
>> 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)" <
>> tm-rid-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of evyncke@cisco.com> 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" <tm-rid-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of noreply@ietf.org>
>> 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
>>         Tm-rid@ietf.org
>>         https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tm-rid
>>
>>
>>     --
>>     Tm-rid mailing list
>>     Tm-rid@ietf.org
>>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tm-rid
>>
>>
>> --
>> Tm-rid mailing list
>> Tm-rid@ietf.org
>> 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
> Tm-rid@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tm-rid
>