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

[Robert Moskowitz <[e-mail]>]

On 7/8/20 10:54 AM, Alexandre Petrescu wrote:
>
>
> Le 08/07/2020 à 15:02, Robert Moskowitz a écrit :
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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?
>
> Can we expect an UAM vehicle to use 802.11-OCB mode (earlier known as 
> 802.11p) at 5.9GHz?
>
> Or is it some other IP-able link layer technology?
>
> Or is it a non-IP link? 

I really doubt it.  I know a bit about 802.11-OCB.  I was active in 802 
when 802.11p was done and did some time on 1609 as well...

I suspect there will be a turf war if the CAAs try to get into the DoTs 
spectrum.  :)

Plus the ICAO is concerned about security and garden-walling airspace 
from most ground space.

So you either have LTE/5G, perhaps a private addressing/slice.  Or 
something down-frequency like 500 - 900 MHz like IEEE 802.16 (note the 
work being done on the PHYs there in TG 802.15.16t).  So I see more of a 
money fight between the 3GPP cellular companies and the private spectrum 
companies.

The private spectrum companies have a very strong case for managing who 
uses their spectrum and maintaining the 'mission critical' 
communication.  Do check out:

http://www.ieee802.org/15/pub/TG16t.html

Some of these frequencies have very good characteristics for this 
application.

For UAM, it SHOULD be an IP link, but if they go Sat, all bets are off, 
depending on the Sat company.

Bob