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

[Robert Moskowitz <[e-mail]>]

Oops.  That was actually yr 80 and yr 81.  We DID not use 0 for yr80 as 
that was already in the history files for yr70...

What did we do for cars made prior to yr70?  I don't think we had any 
connected systems going that far back until much later.

On 7/7/20 1:26 PM, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
> Alex,
>
> I had 19 years automotive.  I lived through the 13 - 17 character VIN 
> conversion.  This included the year 80 'crisis' (before yr2000, there 
> was yr80, going from 1 digit to 2).  At AMC we had to run a number of 
> systems in '81 on year 'A' and /only/ 1 in '82 on year 'B'.  I KNOW 
> about VIN :)
>
> On 7/7/20 12:03 PM, Alexandre Petrescu wrote:
>>
>>
>> Le 07/07/2020 à 17:15, Robert Moskowitz a écrit :
>>>
>>>
>>> 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).
>>
>> A querier receiving simply two such unrelated IDs would have difficulty
>> distinguishing that being one object or two objects flying in formation.
>> ('flightooning', akin to 'platooning' which is a convoy of trucks on 
>> road).
>
> Exactly.  I *THINK* there is wording in the FAA NPRM of only one RID 
> for a UA during an operation.
>
>>
>> A number that is painted would not have such a problem, because the
>> paint is glued on one object.
>
> As opposed to auto license plates that 'questionable' people attach 
> with electro-magnets to drop the fake plate as needed?  :)
>
>
>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>> Thanks.  I would guess a flying taxi would be more like an evolution of
>> an existing flying car, which is itself more of a plane that can also
>> drive on the highway, with its wings folded.  As such I would suspect
>> the tail numbers apply to flying taxis.
>
> Everything I have seen on UAM (Urban Air Mobility) has strict controls 
> over them and this includes proper CAA registration and visible 'tail' 
> numbers.
>
>>
>>> 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).
>>
>> For automobiles, it is very simple: there is a VIN number (Vehicle
>> Identification Number) standardised by SAE and there is the license
>> plate standardised by a country regulator.
>
> As I said, I lived this.  Also when we had to put the VIN visible 
> through the front window and on the engine block and a plate in the 
> driver door frame.  Happy to have that behind me.
>
>>
>> It thus seems that the tail number is like a license plate.
>
> That is how many see it.
>
>> I wonder whether there is a number in planes that is similar to the VIN
>> number in automobiles.
>
> There is an airframe number that is standardized across the manned 
> aircraft industry.  For UAS the proposal currently accepted is 
> ANSI/CTA 2063-A.  This presents challenges for DIY and researcher UA.
>
>
>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>> I see.
>>
>> It sounds like one would expect to query on the Internet the approach of
>> a flying object, like I informally look some times at flightradar24.
>> The great advantage is that I can query it from anywhere about anywhere.
>
> This is the whole UTM/Observer 'ecosystem'.  I have seen one 
> demonstration.  What you can learn is controlled by authentication.  
> Perhaps I can find out the RID of all UA over downtown San Fran, but 
> with my geoloc in Detroit, even a safety officer SHOULD not be able to 
> learn about the Operator of those UA.
>
>
>> For more formal identifications I would have suspected one would query
>> the object in a more direct manner.
>
> No.  Not direct.  Over what link?  This is why there is the whole UTM 
> system that Stu has shown in his slides.
>
> But our plan for HHITs for RID does provide for a rather formal 
> identification.  By receiving the Authentication Messages (see Adam's 
> drafts on the proposed content), an Observer can 'trust' the Remote 
> ID.  I talk about this in the Security Considerations section of my 
> drip-uas-rid draft.
>
>>
>> Alex
>>
>>>
>>> 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
>>
>
> -- 
> 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
>

-- 
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