Re: [Drip] ADSB - draft-moskowitz-drip-crowd-sourced-rid/

[Robert Moskowitz <[e-mail]>]

Brief response...

On 7/19/23 05:58, Alexandre Petrescu wrote:
> Let me reply to the inner message, as the reply from Bob contains it,
> and I have not received it otherwise.
>
> Le 18/07/2023 à 16:34, Robert Moskowitz a écrit :
>> For the most part I agree.
>>
>> But when you are dealing with an aviation university like ERAU that
>> HAS to teach its students about ADS-B, things like this happen and
>> for them to then get some broader experience like writing up their
>> project as a draft so others may consider it, why not?
>>
>> But I am not going to spend time on it.  Well not much; there is 
>> discussion in a number of areas of how to get UA situational
>> awareness into general/civil aviation without a big forklift.
>>
>> see:
>>
>> https://assureuas.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/First-Annual-Report-Final-v1.1-11-14-2022-WEBSITE.pdf 
>>
>>
>>  for some if the issues and thoughts about ADS-B, but no mention
>> (that I see) about FIS-B.
>>
>> After seeing videos of UA encounters with Cessnas (and try and
>> actually see the UA!) and looking at a Cessna console on a lab rack t
>> ERAU, I got to thinking what would it take to add Remote ID reception
>> directly into the Garmin systems and have them filter UA information
>> on the screens.
>
> I can agree.  Garmin sysems, including garmin 'pilot' watches, might
> take a great advantages from displaying situational awareness data about
> planes.  This concept of a driver's watch vibrating when another vehicle
> approaches was demonstrated in automated cars, so why not with planes.

As Stephan pointed out, and I have spoken to a number of general 
aviation pilots on this, there is too much already going on.  Adding 
more to their screens is counter-productive.

That said, in my ERAU visit, there was real interest in how to add DAA 
alerting without unneeded pilot disruption.  I mean if real response IS 
needed, the pilot does need to be disrupted.

There is a lot of talk around tactical DAA.  So more appropriate if the 
light plane can tell the UA to alter course; this is better than to 
expect the light plane to abort a landing.

I have seen complex tactical DAA rerouting simulations done with really 
nothing more than "classical" factory operations research linear 
programming routing models.

All important discussions, but not work we will take on here for a 
while.  More fundamental stuff to put in place first.

>
>> I got the impression that the systems already have the radios, but
>> maybe not the antennas needed
>
> A garmin watch certainly has bluetooth and ANT+ and probably WiFi and
> LTE interfaces.  At that point what one might need is two alternative
> things:
> - an external convertor from ADS-B or Remote ID into ANT+ or into
>   Bluetooth.
> - or an Internet connection in the plane, to which the watch might query
>   flightradar, via watch's WiFi interface.
>
>> (on the lab rack, all antennas removed so the FAA does not ask what
>> that Cessna is doing inside a building!).
>
> Fun!
>
>> No need here for ADS-B or big forklifts.
>
>>> On 7/18/23 10:16, Stephan Wenger wrote: Standard
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I think this WG should stick to its charter.  I think, the ADS-B
>>> based tracking or ADS-B-based crowd-sourcing is not relevant under
>>> this charter, as ADS-B is not, by the regulatory authorities,
>>> considered for UAS Remote Identification.
>>>
>>> With that said, and please excuse the word count which is again due
>>> to providing background info.
>>>
>>> I assume the most recent messages in this thread talk about
>>> ADS-B-In to Bluetooth.
>
> Frankly speaking, for my part, I do not know the distinction between
> ADS-B-In and -Out, so I learn.
>
>>> ADS-B-In is the information that comes down from satellite
>
> I am not sure satellite communication is systematically involved in
> ADS-B communication.  I am under the impression that ADS-B functions
> without satellite, in the most cases.
>
> I can understand ADS-B-Out coming out of large transponders of large
> airplanes, but I do not see the opposition to ADS-B-In.
>
> It does not seem to be as if ADS-B-In was smaller transponders in
> lighter aircraft vs ADS-B-Out larger transpoders in larger heavier 
> aircraft.
>
> There must be something else in there.
>
>>> which flightradar24 and in-cockpit devices and apps use to create a
>>> traffic map,
>
> I think flightradar works without satcom in most cases, even though I am
> not 100% sure.
>
>>> traffic warnings, and for other purposes. Receiving and decoding
>>> this data is unregulated, relatively easy both electronically and
>>> protocol-wise, and hence cheaply available.  You can buy fully
>>> integrated devices such as this here 
>>> https://foreflight.com/products/portable-ads-b-receivers/ for a few
>>>  hundred dollars, which talk to the common aviation apps using 
>>> ASCII-based protocols that can easily be found on the web. Many 
>>> pilots flying with older avionic stacks have those and an iPad, and
>>>  use them for situational awareness. That includes older airliners.
>>> Or you buy a software-defined radio stick for 30 bucks (like this:
>>>
>>> https://www.nooelec.com/store/sdr/sdr-receivers/nesdr-mini-2-plus.html
>>>  ) and hack a few hundred lines of Python code.  For the latter, 
>>> there’s ample free documentation that five minutes with google will
>>>  make available to anyone interested, such as here: 
>>> https://habr.com/en/articles/447078/ There are also open source 
>>> projects.  Lots an lots of information is out there.
>
> Yes, I agree with what is said in this paragraph.
>
>>>
>>> What’s the use for an Internet Draft?
>
> An I-D might want to simply document what is already in use out there.
> If already one single light drones sends Remote ID on bluetooth to a PC
> that converts it into ADS-B data and uploads it to flightradar - that is
> a deployed system which deserves being documented.
>
> If it is documented then it represents a huge help to users of many
> kinds.  A particular kind of of user of flightradar (like me) will be
> very happy to know what means an 'ICAO a24bit ddress' that flighradar
> displays about a light drone.
>
> In a sense it represents a satisfaction of a simple curiosity, but in
> many other senses, some times, it might represent a much more important
> help.  For example some non-aviator people heard on radio airwawes (a
> frequency around 123MHz) voices that were very important.  That happened
> because they knew on which frequency to tune, because it is documented.
>
>>> As for crowd-sourcing to flightradar24, it IS crowd-sourced, today.
>>>  Please see here as an example: 
>>> https://www.flightradar24.com/apply-for-receiver. But, perhaps
>>> wisely, they are currently not interested in signals other than
>>> ADS-B and MLAT data as published by some ATCs (yellow planes) and
>>> space-based transponder tracking (blue planes).  That’s a business
>>> decision on their side, and a good one, IMO.
>
> Sure, there is need of business for things to work.
>
> If there is business in converting bluetoothRemoteID-to-ADSB then so be
> it I-D, otherwise no.
>
>>> As for ADS-B out (the aircraft-transmitting side of ADS-B):
>>> ADS-B-out is strictly regulated, through the allocation of the 24
>>> bit ICAO ID and through radio frequency use.  Operating an
>>> unlicensed ADS-B transmitter, in many countries, can get you into
>>> jail, and for good reasons.  You don’t want to have 
>>> amateurs/idiots/youtube-submission-hunters send false ADS-B data 
>>> trying to show their cars or bicycles or something on
>>> flightradar24. You definitely don’t want to have a ghost plane
>>> showing up on an approach path and force an airliner you sit in to
>>> fly a missed, just so that someone gets a few “likes”. Luckily,
>>> and as already mentioned on this list more than once, ADS-B-out is
>>> line of sight, and the transmitting power is quite high, hence
>>> building a working ADS-B out transmitter is not that easy or cheap,
>>> and you would have to drive to the vicinity of an ADS-B ground
>>> station to do harm.  Also, near airports, ADS-B data is
>>> cross-checked against radar data (manually by the controllers, or
>>> automatically using MLAT nowadays), so we as members of the flying
>>> public don’t have to worry too much about spoofing. All this is
>>> known and understood by people who need to know, including ATC
>>> personnel, pilots, regulators, and such.  The wider IETF/Internet
>>> community does IMO not need to know, though they can puzzle it out
>>> relatively easily when they start reading freely available
>>> information.
>>>
>>> Again, what’s the use for an Internet draft?
>
> True.  It might also be that an I-D gets written about how this
> conversion RemoteID-ADSB of a light drone happens, and nobody uses 
> that I-D. At that point one will say retrospectively that there was no 
> need of that I-D, I agree.
>
> Alex
>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Stephan
>>>
>>> *From: *Tm-rid <[e-mail]> on behalf of Robert
>>> Moskowitz <[e-mail]> *Date: *Tuesday, July 18, 2023
>>> at 14:11 *To: *Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]>,
>>> Stu Card <[e-mail]> *Cc: *[e-mail]
>>> <[e-mail]> *Subject: *Re: [Drip] ADSB -
>>> draft-moskowitz-drip-crowd-sourced-rid/
>>>
>>> Alexandre,
>>>
>>> There is no draft.  It was a student project at Embry-Riddle
>>> Aviation University 2 years ago.  They saw it as the "easy" part of
>>> the assignment!
>>>
>>> I am working with a couple of the profs there (and elsewhere) to
>>> see if I can get them to actually do an Internet Draft on it for
>>> this fall.
>>>
>>> On 7/18/23 04:57, Alexandre Petrescu wrote:
>>>
>>> I read the abstract of draft-moskowitz-drip-crowd-sourced-rid.
>>>
>>> Disclaimer: I will not personally going to work on this, for other 
>>> reasons.
>>>
>>> But I wanted to ask: we discussed about people converting between 
>>> other formats, presumably bluetooth formats, into ADS-B to display 
>>> in flightradar.  That discussion assumed a simple 1-1 conversion. Is 
>>> there a draft about that? (I am asking, but I am not going to work 
>>> on it either for various reasons, but the question is inevitable).
>>>
>>> Alex
>>>
>>> Le 12/07/2023 à 18:04, Robert Moskowitz a écrit :
>>>
>>> On 7/12/23 11:52, Alexandre Petrescu wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Le 12/07/2023 à 17:31, Robert Moskowitz a écrit :
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 7/12/23 11:13, Alexandre Petrescu wrote:
>>>
>>> thanks for the clarification I must have endeavoured in unchartered
>>> lands...
>>>
>>> Just to clarify: I am not disputing.
>>>
>>> I came with this thread to say that I saw ADS-B drones on
>>> flightradar.
>>>
>>>
>>> I am sure people do it.  How they get an aircraft number might be
>>> interesting.  Of course some transponders are preset for this from
>>> what I have heard.
>>>
>>> Also I am away of code that takes "standard" Remote ID messages and
>>> feeds that into ADS-B systems.  So you see them in things like
>>> FlightAware, but they are NOT sending ADS-B.
>>>
>>>
>>> Interesting.  If so then flightradar might say so somewhere on the 
>>> Internet.
>>>
>>>
>>> See my draft:
>>>
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-moskowitz-drip-crowd-sourced-rid/ 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
> For harvesting RemoteID messages to feed into UTM. Feeding
>>> into ATC is probably not a good thing, IMHO.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> of course you have to lie about the aircraft number,
>>>
>>>
>>> For the aircraft type, registration and country of reg.: it says
>>> 'N/A'. (for 'Not Available' I suppose - never knew what a dash had
>>> to do there, as if it were 'Not/Available').
>>>
>>> There is no 'aircraft number' in the page, but maybe you meant
>>> something like that.
>>>
>>> Also, even the legally carrying ADS-B aircraft sometimes dont
>>> provide some of these ADS-B fields, or are some times badly read, or 
>>> badly interpreted.
>>>
>>> But I am happy to see what is there to be seen.
>>>
>>>
>>> going from the 20 character UA ID to the 24-bit aircraft number...
>>>
>>>
>>> The 'ADS-B' drone I saw on flightradar said the 'ICAO 24-bit
>>> address' was '511161' decimal I suppose.  Is there a means to
>>> check the validity of this number?  Or to tilt to thinking it is a
>>> fake?
>>>
>>>
>>> I do not know if there is a way for the general public to link the
>>> 24-bit address back to anything remotely interesting. Just have not
>>> spent time in that direction.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The one effort I reviewed on this I asked this question, and they
>>> said the hashed the UA ID down to 24 bits...
>>>
>>>
>>> Sure, we can do anything, put random or other crazy things in there
>>> - but maybe it is not very good to play like that with these 
>>> numbers.  But I will not dispute that either.  I am just happy I
>>> could see it there.
>>>
>>> If they hashed the UA ID to 24 bit for a 'standard' Remote ID of a
>>> drone into ADS-B - would they do the same for a ground vehicle at
>>> the airport? Do ground vehicles at airport also likely carry 
>>> 'standard' Remote IDs? (obviously ignoring vehicles have other IDs
>>> like VINs...)
>>>
>>>
>>> WE would like to see Trustworthy Remote ID (DRIP work) used beyond
>>> UAS!  I am working along these paths in ICAO.  Civil Aviation is
>>> pushing a PKI; FAA and EUROCONTROL are doing initial testing.
>>> Aircraft and other moving things that participate could easily have
>>> DETs to use.  WIP.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Alex
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> That's about it.
>>>
>>> Alex
>>>
>>> Le 12/07/2023 à 16:56, Stu Card a écrit :
>>>
>>> The UAS RID rules are _not_ defined in this WG!
>>>
>>> They are defined by Civil Aviation Authorities (CAAs) in each
>>> jurisdiction, with coordination via the International Civil
>>> Aviation Organization (ICAO).
>>>
>>> Disputing the rules should be taken up with them, not with the DRIP
>>> WG or any part of IETF.
>>>
>>> Such rules are mentioned in DRIP docs only as background:
>>> motivation, context & constraints.
>>>
>>> Standard Means of Compliance with UAS RID rules, in turn, is mostly
>>> the province of SDOs other than IETF, primarily ASTM
>>> International. Again, disputing those standards should be taken up
>>> with those SDOs, not us.
>>>
>>> Only if some reference, in DRIP docs, to the rules or external
>>> standards, is factually incorrect or unclear in expression for 
>>> understanding by DRIP protocol implementors, is it something we
>>> should be debating here.
>>>
>>>
>>> Get Outlook for Android <https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg>
>>> <https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
> *From:* Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]>
>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>
>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 12, 2023, 10:43 *To:* Stu Card
>>> <[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]>;
>>> Robert Moskowitz <[e-mail]> 
>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>; Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]>
>>> <mailto:[e-mail]> *Cc:* [e-mail] <[e-mail]> 
>>> <mailto:[e-mail]> *Subject:* Re: [Drip] ADSB
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Le 12/07/2023 à 16:00, Stu Card a écrit :
>>>
>>> Very short answers (all for which I have time):
>>>
>>> The rules for RID are based not primarily on RF considerations, but
>>> on aviation considerations.
>>>
>>>
>>> hmmm... it's a principle that is reasonable and that could be
>>> debated.
>>>
>>> One will excuse me for not knowing precisely what are the RID
>>> rules. The RID rules are defined in this WG and I will need to look
>>> at them.
>>>
>>> If I look at them, one day, I will look at them from this
>>> perspective:
>>>
>>> For example, when RID rules say 'altitude' they should say
>>> 'altitude expressed in meters and not in feet as is currently the
>>> inherited case from WWII development of aviation'.
>>>
>>> This kind of text could be of enormous help to implementers: they
>>> simply would need to call less functions(), because less need of
>>> conversions.
>>>
>>> It is the same when RID rules say 'heading' or 'speed', or when we
>>> talk about airport track orientation.  It should be made easy to 
>>> implementer to compare a heading value in a 'heading' of a UAS to
>>> that of a track. One should come up with a single common way of
>>> expressing track orientation, compatible to that of RID rules,
>>> instead of several and incompatible, as is the case in current air
>>> flight industry.  It is because if one does that (interoperable
>>> defs of headings) then the programmer has an easier task.
>>>
>>> Also, about RID rules: they should say that when ASTM wants to send
>>> position and heading they should send the NMEA statements, without 
>>> conversion.
>>>
>>> Until then, if we can not do that, we can also have a human
>>> listening to the radio airport and maneouvering locally or from a
>>> distance, using an innombrable number of calculators and
>>> conversions, after having learned tomes of manuals about how to
>>> fly things.  It is basically easier.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Crewed aircraft _mostly_ fly above 500 feet, except during takeoff
>>> and landing.
>>>
>>>
>>> I always had problems with this term 'crewed' aircraft.  I noticed
>>> it also in the TVR WG, in its reverse form 'uncrewed' aircraft.
>>>
>>> But in reality there can be uncrewed crewed aircrafts too (Unmanned
>>> Air Mobility device, a flying taxi, does carry a couple of persons
>>> on board - 'crew?', yet none of them actually drives the UAM - they
>>> just signed the insurance agreement).  An uncrewed aircraft is
>>> still crewed by the fact that a (group of) persons on the ground is
>>> its crew (drone Reaper is such).  There can also be these devices
>>> that are not crewed, are not continuously driven from a ground by a
>>> crew, yet there are very many eyes of people loooking at where it
>>> is going to - they're pre-programmed.  These would be the true 
>>> 'uncrew' aircraft even though there are many crews simply looking
>>> at them.  They fly at more altitudes than 500 feet.
>>>
>>> This is why I am not sure how to use this term 'crewed aircraft'.
>>>
>>> But I think you meant a 200 passenger aircraft like a regular
>>> airline flight from a city to another.  Even that can be automated 
>>> (crewless?) soon.
>>>
>>>
>>> Small uncrewed aircraft _mostly_ fly at much lower altitudes, as
>>> they are flown largely not to get from one place to another, but
>>> for photographing or otherwise sensing things on the ground (or for
>>> recreation).
>>>
>>>
>>> BEcause of this term 'crew' I can not say whether I agree or not
>>> with you.
>>>
>>> Instinctively, I'd say that there are so many other flying aircraft
>>> that it is hard to say so easily at which altitudes are they
>>> allowed or not, simply based on that 'crewed' qualifier.
>>>
>>> I think the point of view of 'crewed' vs 'uncrewed' is limited in 
>>> itself, leading to potentially missing some aspects.
>>>
>>>
>>> The FAA has established an upper limit of 400 feet AGL for small
>>> uncrewed aircraft flying under their rule appropriate for most
>>> such, to provide 100 feet of vertical separation from these small
>>> UAS and where the crewed aircraft _mostly_ fly.
>>>
>>>
>>> I will not oppose - maybe it is sufficient for them.
>>>
>>> If I were to be picky, I'd say that the notion of 'AGL' itself can
>>> be subject to debate (there are several sea levels in this world and 
>>> moreover they change as we speak) and if one asks why then I
>>> reply that if one would like to put NMEA statements in ASTM
>>> messages for the goal of avoiding conversions then one might be
>>> facing such aspects of precisely what is a sea level.
>>>
>>> But I will not go to the respective SDO, so I leave it there. I
>>> agree they set limits where they need them.
>>>
>>>
>>> WRT units: yes it is a mess; no the EU does not use precisely the
>>> metric equivalents of feet etc. in their rules; note my original
>>> message said "EU rules are similar" not "EU rules are the same 
>>> except for translation of metric units".
>>>
>>>
>>> I agree, you did not say that.
>>>
>>>
>>> IETF does not get to write rules for aviation, therefore neither
>>> does IETF get to write rules for aviation communications; we can
>>> only provide technical standards for interoperable network
>>> protocols that _enhance_ those communications.
>>>
>>>
>>> It's a good thing, because enhancing communications is always
>>> good.
>>>
>>> Alex
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message----- From: Alexandre Petrescu
>>> <[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]> 
>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 12,
>>> 2023 9:45 AM To: Robert Moskowitz <[e-mail]> 
>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>; Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]> 
>>> <mailto:[e-mail]> Cc: Stu Card <[e-mail]> 
>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail] Subject: Re:
>>> [Drip] ADSB
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Le 12/07/2023 à 13:56, Robert Moskowitz a écrit :
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 7/12/23 06:45, Carsten Bormann wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2023-07-12, at 11:52, Alexandre Petrescu 
>>> <[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]> 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> why not 400m
>>>
>>> This is not a domain where we get to invent boundaries.
>>>
>>> (Also, generally speaking, of course we should have a strong bias
>>> to using SI units, but in a domain where regulation is widely based
>>> on furlongs per fortnight, we’ll have to adapt.)
>>>
>>>
>>> And anyway it would be 125M to be a bit more than the Imperial
>>> 400'.
>>>
>>>
>>> True.
>>>
>>> And it obviously begs the question whether in Europe they also have
>>> the same limit of 400' equivalent in meters.  I strongly doubt that
>>> an EU document would talk about a limit of precisely 121.92 meters
>>> just because of being converted to the easy to grasp 400 feet.
>>>
>>> At that point we talk about devices that might be different in an
>>> EU market than in an US market.
>>>
>>> What is the EU altitude limit for numerous drone aircraft to be
>>> considered flying very low, so numerous and so low such as to be
>>> forbidden to carry ADS-B equipment (or turn it off at lower than
>>> that altitude if it carries one)?
>>>
>>>
>>> Why 400'?
>>>
>>> I think it was to keep general aviation some reasonable distance 
>>> above people on the ground.  As the ceiling for UA that is a
>>> consequence.
>>>
>>>
>>> You see, I think there is an error.
>>>
>>> 400 feet might be a good limit in terms of separation of people and
>>> objects above their heads, but it is certainly not any limit in
>>> terms of radio communication.
>>>
>>> If there is to be a radio communication limit (use or not use
>>> ADS-B) it should be based on the power levels it uses and the 
>>> guarantees of range. In WiFi, bluetooth and 2G..5G that's how they
>>> separate.
>>>
>>> For example, an 5G-carrying UAS would be limited to 450meter
>>> altitude because that is how high the ground 5G oriented towards 
>>> ground reaches high.
>>>
>>> A bluetooth-carrying UAS (and not carrying ADS-B) would be limited
>>> to 100 meter altitude because that is how high a bluetooth device
>>> is allowed to emit, by bluetooth regulation.
>>>
>>>
>>> "They can't go any lower, you can't go any higher."
>>>
>>>
>>> Strange.  Many devices, especially those who plane or glide like
>>> these UAS drones, and helicopters too, will stay stable at very
>>> many low altitudes.  Their power systems - more and more
>>> performing, allows for that.
>>>
>>> I very well see a helicopter stable 100meter above the ground, and
>>> surely it carries an ADS-B device, if not several of them.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It is called boundaries to keep unequal players apart.
>>>
>>> One of the interesting debates in this is that the 400' floor is to
>>> ground obstacles like radio towers.  Thus since big birds have to
>>> stay 400' from that 700' radio tower down the block, you can take
>>> your UA up to 1100' right next to it... Or so some claim.
>>>
>>>
>>> Right!
>>>
>>> RAdio towers, or radio towers with even higher anti-flash
>>> ('paratonnerre', fr.) on them?  That adds some 10 meter to the 
>>> picture, to which an UAS drone would need to pay attention, just
>>> like helicopters need to care about power lines above ground too.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> And speaking of Imperial vs Metric...
>>>
>>> Civil aviation separation is 1000'.
>>>
>>> This has already caused incidents where a lesser  Metric distance
>>> was used by one aircraft against one using the greater separation
>>> of Imperial.
>>>
>>> Fun!
>>>
>>> Not.
>>>
>>>
>>> I agree.
>>>
>>> Alex
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Bob
>>>
>>>
>>> -- 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
>>>
>>> -- 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> -- 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