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

 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