Re: [Tm-rid] Some comments on arch-01 and req-01 drafts

Re-,

« Also the plural of "user agent" is "user agents", whereas the plural of "unmanned aircraft" is "unmanned aircraft".”

If we apply this reasoning to “equipment” for example, RFCs should not use CPEs (e.g., RFC 5569), CEs (e.g., RFC 7597), UEs (e.g., RFC 7445), etc.

Let’s not spend cycles on this and keep this discussion hopefully for the AUTH48.

Thank you.

Cheers,
Med

De : Robert Moskowitz [mailto:rgm@labs.htt-consult.com]
Envoyé : mercredi 27 mai 2020 14:58
À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed TGI/OLN; tm-rid@ietf.org
Objet : Re: [Tm-rid] Some comments on arch-01 and req-01 drafts

Med,

SIP (rfc3261) is an IETF protocol.  DRIP is interfacing with a large external existing community and using their terminology.  As such, I would expect the RFC Editor to be aware of this and follow that community's terminology.

The word I hate, but in this case have to agree on, is "harmonize" (or harmonise as I see it spelled in many documents).

Also the plural of "user agent" is "user agents", whereas the plural of "unmanned aircraft" is "unmanned aircraft".

Language, ya got to love it...

Bob
On 5/27/20 8:32 AM, mohamed.boucadair@orange.com<mailto:mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> wrote:

Hi Bob,

One quick comment about your first comment: You may refer to RFC3261 in which both UA and UAS are used. The plural form for UA in that RFC is UAs. I expect the RFC editor to follow a similar approach if our document are processed by the RFC Editor.

I suggest to align our documents with what we know it was adopted by the RFC Editor.

Thank you.

Cheers,

Med

-----Message d'origine-----

De : Tm-rid [mailto:tm-rid-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de Robert

Moskowitz

Envoyé : mercredi 27 mai 2020 14:20

À : tm-rid@ietf.org<mailto:tm-rid@ietf.org>

Objet : [Tm-rid] Some comments on arch-01 and req-01 drafts

First about plural forms applied to acronyms.  In almost all cases

ICAO

does not add an (s).  Too many problems are introduced as in the

following:

RPA    Remotely-piloted aircraft

RPAS   Remotely-piloted aircraft system

UA     Unmanned aircraft

UAS    Unmanned aircraft system(s)

RPAs and UAs would present many problems, and in the case of UAs, the

plural of aircraft is aircraft.

So from all I can tell from ICAO, FAA, and EASA's U-Space:  UA, UAS,

RPA, etc are singular and plural.

Watch out for 'mission', 'flight', and 'operation'.  Almost all should

be 'operation' as the accepted term.

Also confusing is 'Operator' and 'Pilot'.  They are defined

separately.

They may be the same or the Operator may be the UAS owner, or Pilot

Supervisor, etc.  This gets confusing when you see data definitions

that

mix the two.  In the ASTM Location/Vector Message, are they asking for

the Operator or Pilot location?  I am not sure from my reading of

F3411.

In req-01, there are changes to the various actual requirements. This

will require me changing my two drafts, drip-uas-rid and

drip-operator-privacy to match.

In arch-01, sec 5 refers to content in

draft-wiethuechter-tmrid-identity-claims.  This section needs some

work.

in arch-01, 3.2.1 may be a little unclear.  3.2 is about registry and

3.2.1 is about querying for Net-RID provided information, but the

wording is, to me, awkward.

in arch01, sec 4.2, para 2 presents some operational challenges.  In

what HHIT hierarchy does a manufacturer use for a factory installed

HHIT?  This may have implications for drip-uas-rid and require more

thought, or we just leave to implementers.

Anyway here is some review to hopefully help the flow of the meeting

today.

"see" you all soon!

Bob

--

Tm-rid mailing list

Tm-rid@ietf.org<mailto:Tm-rid@ietf.org>

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tm-rid

--
Robert Moskowitz
Owner
HTT Consulting
C:      248-219-2059
F:      248-968-2824
E:      rgm@labs.htt-consult.com<mailto:rgm@labs.htt-consult.com>

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