[Drip] Re: to complete DRIP initial scope, meeting requests: monthly virtual interims SEP & OCT; then hybrid IETF 124 Montreal NOV

[Stu Card <[e-mail]>]

Eric --

Thanks for your prompt reply!

In my view, Adam's draft has 4 purposes:

  *
Serve as a single point of entry into the set of DRIP docs and to a lesser extent to referenced docs from other SDOs.
  *
Detail the process by which the essential artifacts that go into the DRIP minimal public registries (DNS) and extended private registries (RDAP) get created and stored in their respective repositories.
  *
Roughly specify secure RDAP access to the latter, in a manner facilitating trustworthy international (cross-border and near-border) aviation operations.
  *
Make it clear how to build a complete DRIP system enabling use of DETs as aircraft operational Session IDs, authentication key IDs, and (optional, indirect, field-selective) encryption key IDs, in a manner compliant with applicable regulations of CAAs globally (to the extent known to us, inc. but not limited to the U.S. FAA).

As some of those essential artifacts are compact DRIP endorsements (intended primarily for broadcast over severely constrained wireless links) typically corresponding 1:1 with X.509 certificates (for interoperability with arbitrary systems that are less constrained and don't speak DRIP), some of Bob's DKI text needs to be merged into Adam's draft.

Without this last document, DRIP is an incomplete set of parts, w/o the last needed part and w/o a blueprint for integrating them to form a usable system achieving the original goal/scope. Quoting the charter:

"ASTM... does not address how to populate/query registries, how to ensure trustworthiness of information, nor how to make the information useful."

DRIP so far has addressed the 2nd (and 1/4 of the 1st, i.e. query of the public registry) of these lacuna. Adam's draft, w/some content from Bob's DKI draft, finishes addressing the 1st. The 3rd, we can take to another WG, likely outside the Internet Area.

Just as IETF did not intend for the DRIP WG to take so long to address its initially chartered scope, I certainly did not intend to spend this many years of my career and life on it. We simply have not had the # of active participants that seemed willing at our WG-forming BoF. :-( As that does not appear to improve any time soon in a group narrowly scoped to the UAS RID application, closure of the WG, or expansion of its scope (to align better with where DRIP is being picked up by other SDOs) and thus hopefully its roster of motivated participants, seems necessary: "go big or go home". Prior to any closure or expansion, though, we should complete our initial goal/scope with the one final doc described above.

All just my opinion, but one I hold strongly, as it would break my heart to walk away from several years of intense work w/o bringing it to a state where it can be used to achieve its intended safety/security goal.

Thanks Eric, and everyone, for your serious consideration of all this.

-- Stu
1-315-725-7002 mobile