Re: [Tm-rid] Some comments on arch-01 and req-01 drafts

Med,

SIP (rfc3261) is an IETF protocol.  DRIP is interfacing with a large 
external existing community and using their terminology.  As such, I 
would expect the RFC Editor to be aware of this and follow that 
community's terminology.

The word I hate, but in this case have to agree on, is "harmonize" (or 
harmonise as I see it spelled in many documents).

Also the plural of "user agent" is "user agents", whereas the plural of 
"unmanned aircraft" is "unmanned aircraft".

Language, ya got to love it...

Bob

On 5/27/20 8:32 AM, mohamed.boucadair@orange.com wrote:
> Hi Bob,
>
> One quick comment about your first comment: You may refer to RFC3261 in which both UA and UAS are used. The plural form for UA in that RFC is UAs. I expect the RFC editor to follow a similar approach if our document are processed by the RFC Editor.
>
> I suggest to align our documents with what we know it was adopted by the RFC Editor.
>
> Thank you.
>
> Cheers,
> Med
>
>> -----Message d'origine-----
>> De : Tm-rid [mailto:tm-rid-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de Robert
>> Moskowitz
>> Envoyé : mercredi 27 mai 2020 14:20
>> À : tm-rid@ietf.org
>> Objet : [Tm-rid] Some comments on arch-01 and req-01 drafts
>>
>> First about plural forms applied to acronyms.  In almost all cases
>> ICAO
>> does not add an (s).  Too many problems are introduced as in the
>> following:
>>
>> RPA    Remotely-piloted aircraft
>> RPAS   Remotely-piloted aircraft system
>>
>> UA     Unmanned aircraft
>> UAS    Unmanned aircraft system(s)
>>
>> RPAs and UAs would present many problems, and in the case of UAs, the
>> plural of aircraft is aircraft.
>>
>> So from all I can tell from ICAO, FAA, and EASA's U-Space:  UA, UAS,
>> RPA, etc are singular and plural.
>>
>> Watch out for 'mission', 'flight', and 'operation'.  Almost all should
>> be 'operation' as the accepted term.
>>
>> Also confusing is 'Operator' and 'Pilot'.  They are defined
>> separately.
>> They may be the same or the Operator may be the UAS owner, or Pilot
>> Supervisor, etc.  This gets confusing when you see data definitions
>> that
>> mix the two.  In the ASTM Location/Vector Message, are they asking for
>> the Operator or Pilot location?  I am not sure from my reading of
>> F3411.
>>
>> In req-01, there are changes to the various actual requirements. This
>> will require me changing my two drafts, drip-uas-rid and
>> drip-operator-privacy to match.
>>
>> In arch-01, sec 5 refers to content in
>> draft-wiethuechter-tmrid-identity-claims.  This section needs some
>> work.
>>
>> in arch-01, 3.2.1 may be a little unclear.  3.2 is about registry and
>> 3.2.1 is about querying for Net-RID provided information, but the
>> wording is, to me, awkward.
>>
>> in arch01, sec 4.2, para 2 presents some operational challenges.  In
>> what HHIT hierarchy does a manufacturer use for a factory installed
>> HHIT?  This may have implications for drip-uas-rid and require more
>> thought, or we just leave to implementers.
>>
>>
>> Anyway here is some review to hopefully help the flow of the meeting
>> today.
>>
>> "see" you all soon!
>>
>> Bob
>>
>> --
>> Tm-rid mailing list
>> Tm-rid@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tm-rid

-- 
Standard Robert Moskowitz
Owner
HTT Consulting
C:248-219-2059
F:248-968-2824
E:rgm@labs.htt-consult.com

There's no limit to what can be accomplished if it doesn't matter who 
gets the credit