Re: [Tm-rid] Draft charter

[Robert Moskowitz <[e-mail]>]

Eric,

Typical breakfast.  Not too creative only what morning tea to have on a 
given day.

On 10/10/19 1:53 PM, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) wrote:
> Standard
>
> Bob,
>
> I hope that your breakfast was a good one ;-)
>
> More seriously, the privacy issue simply needs to be addressed by a 
> document (or part of a document). If regulations say ‘no privacy’, 
> then this is also a statement. But, I would believe that it is also 
> privacy towards ‘normal citizens’ but again I can be wrong about the 
> FAA rules. TM-RID needs a privacy consideration.
>

Stu can speak better to this than me, but from what I heard, the FAA 
controls all the airspace in the US and if you have something there, you 
can be called on it.

In the past, most of this has been in the noise that has not gotten 
attention.  Other than when someone's RF plane flies over an airport 
because a gust of wind blew it past control of the operator.

Now with little UAV, again going out of RF range of the teen controlling 
them, flying in front of landing aircraft (it is so cool to fly your UAV 
in the neat field by the airport...).  Any exception would be the case 
that caused the accident.

Of course there will always be problems.  The UAV sold in a garage sale 
and the new owner NOT updating the registration information. But expect 
the FAA to act as it needs to.  Plus the penalties can be harsh.

Look at MacTaggart's comment about building inspections and a spec of 
paint on a sprinkler.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/10/tech/alastair-mactaggart/index.html

Regs get put in place because of lessons learned and everyone is 
learning lots of lessons with UAS and everyone is behind the curve. Of 
course the claim is that the biggest user of drone deliver are the drug 
dealers...

Now HOW the USS manages the data it has on the operators is out of scope 
of this work and gets into real policy legislation.

> Per your previous email, yes: I meant that IESG wants to ensure that 
> HIP is the right solution and no other layer-2 or layer-3 techniques 
> fit the requirements. So, another document to be prepared for this 
> specific TM-RID use case.
>

I am looking at 'invent HITs for IKE' argument.  Stu will have to 
provide the l2 vs l3 discussion as he has the knowledge about the 
systems in use today.

> So, all “i” must be dotted and “t” crossed ;-)
>

I have docs to write.  I know.  I did the easy ones first.

> Regards
>
> -éric
>
> *From: *Tm-rid <[e-mail]> on behalf of Robert Moskowitz 
> <[e-mail]>
> *Date: *Thursday, 10 October 2019 at 19:27
> *To: *Eric Vyncke <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
> *Subject: *Re: [Tm-rid] Draft charter
>
> Eric,
>
> In the area of privacy, there are conflicting issues.
>
> In the USofA, NO civil UAV can have privacy of its Identity. The FAA 
> 'owns' all airspace at 1' above the ground, if I have that right (and 
> Stu will correct me).  Thus according to law, a person does not have 
> any claim to privacy flying a UAV over their own property.
>
> Think about it.  Just because it is on their property does not mean it 
> is not interacting with others.
>
> So no privacy of ID or basic associated information.
>
> And to proper authorities more information.
>
> This is not to say that the ID is forever.  Some use cases can justify 
> an ID per flight/mission.  The delivery services (read UPS, FedEX) 
> have already identified and justified the need of ID per mission.  But 
> again, for that delivery, the fact that the UAV belongs to delivery 
> service Q will be available.
>
> NetworkID takes this farther.  It is not just the UAV in your VLOS 
> (Visual Line of Sight), but also those that were there in the last 60s 
> or MAY be there in the next 60s.  It could also, for authorized 
> personnel, extend out further.
>
> Now when we get to C2 (Command and Control), there are some privacy 
> aspects, but again the operator of a UAV (why it is called UAS for 
> system) has limited privacy.  To authorized personnel the operators 
> location MUST be known.  There is a Self-ID broadcast message part of 
> the basic BT messages, but it is informational only (like a Realtor 
> saying which property s/he is videoing for a posting).
>
> Bob
>
> On 10/10/19 4:21 AM, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) wrote:
>
>     Bob and others,
>
>     During the BoF approval call with IESG & IAB, the TM-RID BoF has
>     been approved as a non-WG-forming BoF as the charter is not
>     completely mature (see below).
>
>     It was also preferred to have TM-RID as a stand-alone WG: based on
>     experience, a dedicated/focus group is lighter and more efficient.
>     So, HIP is unchanged but all work done around HIP for TM-RID will
>     end up (like now) into HIP WG.
>
>     The TM-RID charter will have to be discussed in the BoF meeting in
>     Singapore and must include a privacy statement/work item. The
>     IAB/IESG feedback was also that the current charter is too much on
>     HIP and would like to explore whether other technologies
>     (including layer-2 ones) could be applicable.
>
>     All the above does not prevent the current work on TM-RID related
>     drafts of course.
>
>     So, let’s talk in Singapore at the BoF
>
>     -éric
>
>     *From: *Tm-rid <[e-mail]>
>     <mailto:[e-mail]> on behalf of Robert Moskowitz
>     <[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     *Date: *Friday, 4 October 2019 at 00:48
>     *To: *"[e-mail]" <mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     *Subject: *Re: [Tm-rid] Draft charter
>
>
>
>
>
>     Updated charter:
>
>     Governmental agencies worldwide, including the United States
>     Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), are embarking on rule
>     making processes to define Remote Identification (RID)
>     requirements for Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS). ASTM
>     International (formerly the American Society for Testing and
>     Materials) F38 Committee Work Item WK65041, “Standard
>     Specification for UAS Remote ID and Tracking”, addresses such
>     anticipated requirements. Broadcast RID defines a set of messages
>     for UAS to send one-way over Bluetooth or IEEE 802.11. Network RID
>     defines how the same information (and potentially more) can be
>     made available via the Internet. The ASTM draft does not address
>     how to ensure or at least assess trustworthiness of information
>     communicated via RID.
>
>     The Host Identity Protocol (HIP) Host Identity Tag (HIT) is
>     ideally suited to work within this RID effort. For each Unmanned
>     Aircraft (UA), a HIT can consolidate the 4-tuple of (UA ID, UA
>     physical location, UA onboard host ID, UA onboard host logical
>     location [IP address list]) to a 3-tuple (HIT, UA physical
>     location, UA onboard host logical location) and thereby provide
>     significant benefits.
>
>     For HIP to be used effectively in this environment, it needs updates.
>
>     - Hierarchical HITs (HHIT) enabling scalable and trustable
>     registration: HHIT was part of the original design of HIP, but was
>     dropped for lack of a clear use case. RID messages containing
>     HHITs will enable use of DNS to access information about the UAS.
>
>     - expanded HIP Registration for HHITs: This registration process
>     will provide proof of authenticity and prevent duplicate HHITs
>     from occurring. Further, these Registries will provide the UAS DNS
>     information and other services (including support of RVS for
>     Network RID and related applications).
>
>     - new cryptographic algorithms: Extremely compact keys and
>     signatures (such as are enabled by EdDSA and Keccak functions) are
>     needed to meet the severely constrained UAS environment.
>
>     Additionally, tm-rid will offer specifications for HIP-augmented
>     ASTM RID messages. Initially this will consist of additional RID
>     Authentication Messages that use the HI in public key signing
>     operations: to prove UAS ownership of the HHIT; to authenticate
>     other claims made via RID, such as position and velocity, as
>     having been made by the owner of that HHIT; and to provide
>     observers lacking current Internet connectivity with locally
>     verifiable UAS proof-of-registration objects.
>
>     Further work will emerge as experience is gained in using HIP for
>     UAS RID. For example, some UAS Traffic Management (UTM) systems
>     envision using OAuth for Ground Control Systems (GCS) and
>     authorized safety personnel. HIP as an OAuth method may help in
>     merging HIP into these systems.
>
>     The goal is to complete these updates to HIP by the end of 2020.
>
> -- 
> Robert Moskowitz
> Owner
> HTT Consulting
> C: 248-219-2059
> F: 248-968-2824
> E: [e-mail] <mailto:[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