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

On 7/9/20 10:51 AM, Da Silva, Saulo wrote:
> You mentioned my name, so, some comments below your notes.
> Saulo
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tm-rid <tm-rid-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Robert Moskowitz
> Sent: 8-Jul-20 9:02 AM
> To: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
> Cc: tm-rid@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Tm-rid] Review of draft-drip-arch-02 w.r.t. RFC6973, RFC8280 and other
>
>
>
> On 7/8/20 8:49 AM, Alexandre Petrescu wrote:
>>
>> Le 07/07/2020 à 19:26, Robert Moskowitz a écrit :
>>> ANSI/CTA 2063-A
>> Thank you.
>>
>> I downloaded it.
>>
>> But it says "Unmanned", whereas a flying taxi would be manned even if
>> that person would not control the flight.
>>
>> Maybe they'll change the title of the document, or maybe the UAM
>> inclined will invent a new ID for 'manned but not in control' or
>> something like that.
> Saulo: We call them autonomous.
>
> For now, ICAO sees UAM as Unmanned and will use the 2063 numbering scheme.  They are unmanned in the sense of no pilot on board.  If there IS a pilot on board, then they are manned aircraft and fall under those regulations and numbering. (actually I believe testing to date have been onboard pilot air taxis.)
>
> ICAO (Saulo needs to join in) has augmented the paper certification process for manned aircraft with a digital process.  Manned flying taxis will be in this category unless a new one is created.
>
> Saulo: I don’t know wat you call "augmented paper certification" but whatever a vehicle is called "aircraft" it requests airworthiness certification, be it manned or unmanned and on the unmanned we may also have the autonomous category (no pilot onboard or on the ground) ones.

It is my thought of the slide deck Mike Goodfellow (of ICAO for the rest 
here) shared with me on the IATF X.509 work.  It shows the 'old' paper 
system for certifying an airframe and registering it and how that is 
input to the new digital registration process.  So the old paper system 
is 'augmented' with digital components, but still, for the most part, 
the same process.

> Then you get should a UAM, even manned participate in the Broadcast Remote ID messaging for safety purposes?  I would think so, but this is still really an unclear area.
>
> Saulo: As of today's developments , without having the regulations to cover it, the answer is yes.
>
> definitely they will not participate in the automotive V2X ecosystem, despite conversations over on the ITS list.  Oh, they may listen in, but what messaging impacts them?
>
> Saulo: Agree.

Perhaps ICAO should check in on the IETF ITS list and add some 
perspective there?  They are going down a road where they are designing 
for including UAM into the V2X framework.  I really can't fault them too 
much, as I have seen many position papers on the interaction between 
urban ground systems and air systems...

>
> Bob
>
> --
> Tm-rid mailing list
> Tm-rid@ietf.org
> https://secure-web.cisco.com/1fVCI0d3ZjaRLYOqMoz20_QhDktYXzfHlKy6CLfTnv4KFnaZHu9HTvyETH-VA66yy-K1D3aWSetch81R8oetV7bN_1Gd9cxec72BWZpzMStE8jhFkE7FyW8BbZ7A8FQhrnu1jfxZLbtqsp2QjM5iSAjepvmNvstZz4eg4JOpwV-9XmxZpjKbithNlUzs4-WR2CfjyYnz9fINzZExnw-gcxVjcnwQX9F6hFGG_kUV1Yzuadz3QbQWgtNmAbawrxaPlIrF725lXvPPHkaRRcjlLkdK_8l0QE82tGwPOF_sGF54vD20ee1VofYgXwiE5472dpqKMlOgqccgTn7qjXO2XLA/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ftm-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