IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Drip] Comment on -arch-22

Jens Finkhaeuser <jfinkhaeuser@protonmail.com> Thu, 24 March 2022 09:45 UTC

Return-Path: <jfinkhaeuser@protonmail.com>
X-Original-To: tm-rid@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tm-rid@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D66563A1606 for <tm-rid@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Mar 2022 02:45:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.106
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.106 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H5=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=protonmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id flgOUVHQqhIn for <tm-rid@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Mar 2022 02:45:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-4316.protonmail.ch (mail-4316.protonmail.ch [185.70.43.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9B8B83A15FE for <tm-rid@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Mar 2022 02:45:40 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2022 09:45:36 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com; s=protonmail; t=1648115137; bh=Bg/x8PfsfEi+9z0seNx9rqVOdtXHIFE55aLLs2GYGP4=; h=Date:To:From:Reply-To:Subject:Message-ID:From:To:Cc:Date:Subject: Reply-To:Feedback-ID:Message-ID; b=LcIVtdiiCnMddQdINFC0G7R/DsBqWGlHrKW0yIi/iTVYwjnBUdHohgM/qFlyFansf YEXtmSPSk0HjowdpQs0lmWGer8LtfG327Go1AcNaKSkWQ7vo9T6mKywletFhFf8n50 C9Lx7QO7yQHAErFH70pUebskl2Y106BCANiTG6fx+Y0mrA4QwxENjScxmqPTvE94X8 ixuf7LTXsB07MpxZtFM8a6XKuH9/ZSJtSHixtTHQ5FJoHu+QLZK9hdbmiXLL3uFVaF ZS13YQv4h+KOkC/RmeXN4gzjWLO4homVtKnlmMf+IYeXmpb1r1xfsB0bJkI5lwuZ26 1fk+V9vCCIiZg==
To: "tm-rid@ietf.org" <tm-rid@ietf.org>
From: Jens Finkhaeuser <jfinkhaeuser@protonmail.com>
Reply-To: Jens Finkhaeuser <jfinkhaeuser@protonmail.com>
Message-ID: <t941p8wbPadYaW5iXMZZ92fRZxA9AShZYY2-vpoY4Nh9uhgeZozaJJI1GnLhzKJlirvUFL4vy8ARuip2QVfc0Br6upFgliBWVCM2YXJsWhw=@protonmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha256; boundary="------3ba940fbda90822d7e5639919bd2692a5fc93ab736b58a6bb667b8c4d231ce60"; charset=utf-8
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tm-rid/qkXvpwOj4nJTPEb7FNNAEcLaubU>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 24 Mar 2022 03:08:02 -0700
Subject: [Drip] Comment on -arch-22
X-BeenThere: tm-rid@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Drone Remote Identification Protocol <tm-rid.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tm-rid>, <mailto:tm-rid-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tm-rid/>
List-Post: <mailto:tm-rid@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tm-rid-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tm-rid>, <mailto:tm-rid-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2022 09:48:25 -0000

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

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email