Re: [Drip] Comment on -arch-22

["Card, Stu" <[e-mail]>]

Jens --

Your concerns are well taken.

I did not know that expectations outside the US of how BVLOS operations
would work do not typically entail Internet connectivity (as they seem to
here).

Handoff among different links (and different link technologies) is
something we are trying to address. In our own test flights, for C2 (not
UAS RID), we have used HIP, MP-TCP and other protocols to fail over
transparently from Wi-Fi to LTE when the former link quality degrades
excessively (due to distance or whatever), then transparently fall back
when Wi-Fi again becomes usable.

By using a Hierarchical Host Identity Tag (HHIT) as the DRIP Entity Tag
(DET), we deconflate that identifier (and the public key based Host
Identity [HI] it represents) from any/all locators (including conventional
IP addresses), yet facilitate mapping between identifiers and locators
(e.g. using HIP DNS RRs) to support mobility and multihoming (the latter
facilitating make-before-break soft handoff).

Bob Moskowitz and I would appreciate any inputs/help we can get on
leveraging DRIP (focused on UAS RID) to facilitate robust identity-oriented
V2I communications for C2, DAA, etc. :-)

-- Stu




On Thu, Mar 24, 2022 at 7:36 AM Jens Finkhaeuser <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I am (recently) subscribed to the list, unfortunately under a different
> email address than I selected previously.
>
> Yes, NPA-2021-14 is a good starting point. It refers to the U-SPACE
> regulation (EU) 2021/664 which concerns itself in more detail with
> identification. I don't think that offhand there is much conflict here with
> the draft in principle.
>
> I am actually a little more concerned with the implications of the last
> paragraph on page 5 referring to C2 links and the first on the following
> page. The AMC on C2/C3 links always require mission appropriate link
> performance; in this they provide some parameters, but also refer back to
> ICAO regulations.
>
> At any rate, given current state of the art, it is unlikely for a
> multi-purpose drone to carry a single link technology, but hand over C2/C3
> connectivity between several. This, and how this relates to control hand
> over between different ground control stations is our current research
> focus.
>
> Link technology and control handover tend to coincide with critical phases
> of flight (i.e. takeoff and landing), as altitude changes often trigger the
> need to switch links, and proximity to ground control stations often
> require control handover. A particular challenge here is posed by
> fixed-wing drones which can land at speeds in excess of 100km/h; range and
> latency of RF technology clearly influence the ability to switch over
> safely.
>
> But also BVLOS scenarios to areas not covered by conventional 3GPP means
> (remote, offshore, in RF shadow) will require similar link and perhaps
> control handover as BVLOS here implies beyond RF LOS.
>
> What this means is that the ASTM suggestion of e.g. Bluetooth 4 or WiFi
> for broadcast RIDs is likely only workable to comparatively slow drones.
> Conversely, the assumption that there is some Internet connectivity
> provided by the C2 link is not in line with beyond RF LOS scenarios - the
> draft acknowledges this, but seems to focus on situations where Internet
> connectivity is given after all.
>
> Again, though, this doesn't invalidate any work done on this draft, or its
> contents. It just raises the spectre of future work in fulfilling
> regulatory requirements in such scenarios that are less ideal for
> communications.
>
> I hope that clarifies my comment a little. It comes back to a question of
> intended scope; regional scope is only one aspect.
>
> Unfortunately, I did not consider joining IETF mailing lists until very
> recently, or I would have been able to raise this much earlier.
>
> Jens
>
> ------- Original Message -------
> On Thursday, March 24th, 2022 at 11:31, <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
> 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.
>
>
> --
> Tm-rid mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tm-rid
>