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

[Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

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).

A number that is painted would not have such a problem, because the
paint is glued on one object.

>> 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.

> 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.

It thus seems that the tail number is like a license plate.

I wonder whether there is a number in planes that is similar to the VIN
number in automobiles.

>> 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.

For more formal identifications I would have suspected one would query
the object in a more direct manner.

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