Re: [Tm-rid] Review of draft-drip-arch-02 w.r.t. RFC6973, RFC8280 and other

[Robert Moskowitz <[e-mail]>]

On 7/7/20 10:36 AM, Alexandre Petrescu wrote:
>
>
> Le 06/07/2020 à 20:57, Carsten Bormann a écrit :
>> On 2020-07-06, at 20:15, Amelia Andersdotter 
>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>> - In some European languages, there is no language-inherent ways
>>> to express the difference between safety and security, said the 
>>> Scholar. In some Scandinavian languages, for instance, the closest
>>>  translation of "safety" rather brings the mind to a state of 
>>> personal comfort. It is easy to get lost in translation when 
>>> operating in fields that rely a lot on the distinction.
>>
>> Indeed.  E.g., in German, both are called “Sicherheit”. In practice,
>>  we help ourselves by simply using the English terms when we need a 
>> more selective term.  If we are ever forced to actually speak German,
>> we invent compound terms such as “Angriffssicherheit” (Security) and
>> “Betriebssicherheit” (Safety).
>
> Platon would have probably said something about Σωτηρία
> (ancient Greek for the name of a goddess of salvation), especially
> because he cared about that, as he found the defenders to be very useful.
>
> That aside,
>
> I wonder why the choice of encoding an identifier in one domainname was
> made, and not that of set of them?

Nothing prevents a UA from having multiple IDs to use where needed. Just 
the caveat that the Basic ID Message only has room for one ID and it is 
expected that that ID be used for a whole Operation.

> There could be two domainnames in an onboard network of a flying taxi:
> one dedicated to the hosts on the onboard safety network and one for the
>  hosts on the entertainment network, for the traveller's smartphone wifi.

UAM provides some other interesting considerations.  I suspect that a 
UAM will still be required to Broadcast Remote ID messages.  In theory 
it could have 2 radios sending out different set of messages with 
different MAC addresses (Note that many Brd-RID messages do NOT have the 
Remote ID, the receiver MUST be able to correlate messages to RID based 
on MAC).

>
> When that is so, one would still want one domainname to be advertised to
> the outside, like there is just one text painted on the outside.
>
> This makes me wonder if it would not be easier to just take that
> conventional name painted on the outside frame and encode it in an
> identifier, and why not putting it in an IPv6 address.

CAAs REQUIRE a tail number for all commercial and almost all civil 
aircraft to be displayed clearly.  For your hobby drone, you are 
expected to register it with the FAA (or EASA in EU) and be assigned a 
tail number.

Thus for 'starters' a UA has THREE IDs:  Manufacturer Serial Number, CAA 
registration, Remote ID.  Now the ASTM and FAA and EASA proposals offer 
to use Serial # or Tail # as RID (see text about ASTM RID types 
currently defined).

But each CAA has its own rules on what is a tail number, thus encoding 
into an IPv6 address is interesting.  Actually that IS being discussed 
in IATF GRAIN study group (yet another weekly call).

>
> If we do so, the privacy question would be easier: the painted text is
> there mandatory anyways so anyone can see it with a pair of binoculars.

Yes, but that is not even VLOS as you can't always see where the number 
is.  With RID, it is RLOS.

Oh, and I have been told there are 'perfect' replica model planes. For 
example it LOOKs just like a 737 even with binoculars.  But it is only 
1000' feet away, not 30000'.

The whole privacy/safety issue is complex.

Bob


>
> Alex
>
>
>   The difference is presence or absence
>> of the human mind to effect the degradation of freedom from dangers.
>>  (Of course, the terms are not used as selectively in practice in 
>> English either, e.g., “social security” is mostly about safety.)
>>
>> Grüße, Carsten
>>
>

-- 
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