Re: [Drip] Comment on -arch-22

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

Jens --

The point of your 3rd paragraph about an aircraft identifier being useful
for V2X communications if it is a network identifier and the distinction of
that from a locator is precisely why my coworkers and I came to the IETF
for help with what we call Trustworthy Multipurpose Remote Identification
(tm-rid). I did not know that discussion of that distinction had resumed in
int-area, thanks for that tip!

The need to be able to trust that an aircraft (or other aviation related
entity) claiming an identity (and associated identifier) is why we turned
not to ILNP, LISP or any of the other locator-identifier split approaches
but to HIP, which naturally bakes it in. HIP being for hosts (in this
context, individual end systems on a specific aircraft, rather than the
collection of all intermediate and end systems on that aircraft) suggests
we may want to revisit something like

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-henderson-hip-vpls/

as well as

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-nikander-esp-beet-mode/

DRIP Architecture is intended to support making UAS RID both trustworthy
and immediately useful, e.g. to initiate policy-authorized Observer to
Pilot (O2P) or other V2X comms. We would really appreciate your thoughts on
this.

-- Stu

On Wed, Mar 30, 2022, 06:49 Jens Finkhaeuser <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I was under the impression that Corus is completed. I do not know the
> -xuam postfix. Is it a follow-on or subproject?
>
> Since Corus is more related to U-SPACE and therefore (internet-) connected
> services, and our projects are more related to the vehicles themselves, I
> suspect there is some use in better coordination. We do of course consume
> results from such projects, but I get the impression that on occasion
> they're less connected than might be useful. That's generally the case
> between any of these projects, also we are sometimes busy transferring
> insights from one to the other and back.
>
> It's interesting as well that the drone identification issue overlaps in
> the communication space with the more general discussion occurring in
> int-area on locators vs identifiers. The latter here is a *network*​
> identifier, which from a communications perspective shouldn't be all that
> different from the drone identifier - either one derived from the other, or
> the same. That is, it is desirable from a ground control station to "speak
> with the drone" rather than "speak with the first network interface on the
> drone" or "speak with the IP address that the first network interface of
> the drone currently has assigned".
>
> I'm trying to provide this perspective to that conversation at the moment.
> That's also the lens through which I'm exploring DRIP. Fun times ahead!
>
> Jens
>
> ------- Original Message -------
> On Tuesday, March 29th, 2022 at 18:06, Andrei Gurtov <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
> Hello Jens,
>
> Thanks for interest in DRIP and greetings from nearby Sweden.
>
> Maybe you've heard about EU projects AiRMOUR and Corus-Xuam where we try
> to demo DRIP as a part of their tests.
>
> https://airmour.eu/
>
> https://corus-xuam.eu/
>
> Btw, there is an interesting show from a Swiss company Involi about an
> add-on box for Remote ID, should we get them involved in DRIP?
>
> https://dronelife.com/2022/03/27/remote-id-drone-tracker-leman-remoteid-from-involi-video/
>
>
> BR Andrei
> --
> Andrei Gurtov, PhD, ACM Distinguished Scientist
> Professor, LiU, Sweden
> Chair, IEEE Swedenhttps://www.ida.liu.se/~andgu38/
>
> On 24-Mar-22 10:45, Jens Finkhaeuser wrote:
>
> 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
>
>
> --
> Tm-rid mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tm-rid
>