Re: [Tm-rid] Review of draft-drip-arch-02 w.r.t. RFC6973, RFC8280 and other

[Robert Moskowitz <[e-mail]>]

On 7/7/20 11:31 AM, Amelia Andersdotter wrote:
> On 2020-07-07 17:15, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
>>
>> On 7/7/20 10:36 AM, Alexandre Petrescu wrote:
>>
>>> There could be two domainnames in an onboard network of a flying taxi:
>>> one dedicated to the hosts on the onboard safety network and one for the
>>>   hosts on the entertainment network, for the traveller's smartphone
>>> wifi.
>> UAM provides some other interesting considerations.  I suspect that a
>> UAM will still be required to Broadcast Remote ID messages.  In theory
>> it could have 2 radios sending out different set of messages with
>> different MAC addresses (Note that many Brd-RID messages do NOT have
>> the Remote ID, the receiver MUST be able to correlate messages to RID
>> based on MAC).
>>
>   there is upstarting work on MAC identifier
> replacements:
> https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/20/11-20-0742-01-0rcm-proposed-par-draft.docx
>
>
> which might be interesting if this is something that is going to present
> architectural or other concerns in this group. or perhaps to talk about the work of this group in the ietf-ieee coordination group at least.

Thanks for the heads up.  Even though I am on the 802.11 distribution 
and TEND to pay attention, I missed this one.  I did work on some of the 
802sec work, so I will see how this ties in.

I do know most of the 802.11 people.

>>> When that is so, one would still want one domainname to be advertised to
>>> the outside, like there is just one text painted on the outside.
>>>
>>> This makes me wonder if it would not be easier to just take that
>>> conventional name painted on the outside frame and encode it in an
>>> identifier, and why not putting it in an IPv6 address.
>> CAAs REQUIRE a tail number for all commercial and almost all civil
>> aircraft to be displayed clearly.  For your hobby drone, you are
>> expected to register it with the FAA (or EASA in EU) and be assigned a
>> tail number.
>>
> I'm assuming that registration of hobby drones (or other aerial
> vehicles) will occur with national or at least regional CAAs in the
> European area, and that EASA will not perform a stronger function than
> coordinating the federated architecture for registries that are thus set
> up - at least in so far as they do not contain information that is
> deemed sensitive by the national or regional CAAs (or other entities) in
> question.
>
> This is why the U-space documents emphasize federation and modularity a
> lot, and perhaps why something like DNS tech could be interesting (I
> imagine).

The goal will be to add in some flexibility and still allow the CAAs to 
meet their regulator/safety concerns.


>
> best regards,
>
> Amelia
>

-- 
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