Subject: [Tm-rid] Some comments on arch-01 and req-01 drafts

From: Robert Moskowitz <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 May 2020 08:20:22 -0400

First about plural forms applied to acronyms.  In almost all cases ICAO 
does not add an (s).  Too many problems are introduced as in the following:

RPA    Remotely-piloted aircraft
RPAS   Remotely-piloted aircraft system

UA     Unmanned aircraft
UAS    Unmanned aircraft system(s)

RPAs and UAs would present many problems, and in the case of UAs, the 
plural of aircraft is aircraft.

So from all I can tell from ICAO, FAA, and EASA's U-Space:  UA, UAS, 
RPA, etc are singular and plural.

Watch out for 'mission', 'flight', and 'operation'.  Almost all should 
be 'operation' as the accepted term.

Also confusing is 'Operator' and 'Pilot'.  They are defined separately.  
They may be the same or the Operator may be the UAS owner, or Pilot 
Supervisor, etc.  This gets confusing when you see data definitions that 
mix the two.  In the ASTM Location/Vector Message, are they asking for 
the Operator or Pilot location?  I am not sure from my reading of F3411.

In req-01, there are changes to the various actual requirements. This 
will require me changing my two drafts, drip-uas-rid and 
drip-operator-privacy to match.

In arch-01, sec 5 refers to content in 
draft-wiethuechter-tmrid-identity-claims.  This section needs some work.

in arch-01, 3.2.1 may be a little unclear.  3.2 is about registry and 
3.2.1 is about querying for Net-RID provided information, but the 
wording is, to me, awkward.

in arch01, sec 4.2, para 2 presents some operational challenges.  In 
what HHIT hierarchy does a manufacturer use for a factory installed 
HHIT?  This may have implications for drip-uas-rid and require more 
thought, or we just leave to implementers.

Anyway here is some review to hopefully help the flow of the meeting today.

"see" you all soon!

Bob

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 May 2020 12:32:02 +0000

Hi Bob, 

One quick comment about your first comment: You may refer to RFC3261 in which both UA and UAS are used. The plural form for UA in that RFC is UAs. I expect the RFC editor to follow a similar approach if our document are processed by the RFC Editor. 

I suggest to align our documents with what we know it was adopted by the RFC Editor. 

Thank you. 

Cheers,
Med

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Tm-rid [mailto:[email-masked]] De la part de Robert
> Moskowitz
> Envoyé : mercredi 27 mai 2020 14:20
> À : [email-masked]
> Objet : [Tm-rid] Some comments on arch-01 and req-01 drafts
> 
> --
> Tm-rid mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tm-rid

---

From: Robert Moskowitz <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 May 2020 08:57:43 -0400

Med,

SIP (rfc3261) is an IETF protocol.  DRIP is interfacing with a large 
external existing community and using their terminology.  As such, I 
would expect the RFC Editor to be aware of this and follow that 
community's terminology.

The word I hate, but in this case have to agree on, is "harmonize" (or 
harmonise as I see it spelled in many documents).

Also the plural of "user agent" is "user agents", whereas the plural of 
"unmanned aircraft" is "unmanned aircraft".

Language, ya got to love it...

Bob

-- 
Standard Robert Moskowitz
Owner
HTT Consulting
C:248-219-2059
F:248-968-2824
E:[email-masked]

There's no limit to what can be accomplished if it doesn't matter who 
gets the credit

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 May 2020 14:08:32 +0000

Re-,

« Also the plural of "user agent" is "user agents", whereas the plural of "unmanned aircraft" is "unmanned aircraft".”

If we apply this reasoning to “equipment” for example, RFCs should not use CPEs (e.g., RFC 5569), CEs (e.g., RFC 7597), UEs (e.g., RFC 7445), etc.

Let’s not spend cycles on this and keep this discussion hopefully for the AUTH48.

Thank you.

Cheers,
Med

De : Robert Moskowitz [mailto:[email-masked]]
Envoyé : mercredi 27 mai 2020 14:58
À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed TGI/OLN; [email-masked]
Objet : Re: [Tm-rid] Some comments on arch-01 and req-01 drafts

Med,

SIP (rfc3261) is an IETF protocol.  DRIP is interfacing with a large external existing community and using their terminology.  As such, I would expect the RFC Editor to be aware of this and follow that community's terminology.

The word I hate, but in this case have to agree on, is "harmonize" (or harmonise as I see it spelled in many documents).

Also the plural of "user agent" is "user agents", whereas the plural of "unmanned aircraft" is "unmanned aircraft".

Bob
On 5/27/20 8:32 AM, [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]> wrote:

Hi Bob,

Thank you.

Cheers,

Med

-----Message d'origine-----

Moskowitz

À : [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>

First about plural forms applied to acronyms.  In almost all cases

ICAO

does not add an (s).  Too many problems are introduced as in the

following:

UA     Unmanned aircraft

Also confusing is 'Operator' and 'Pilot'.  They are defined

separately.

Supervisor, etc.  This gets confusing when you see data definitions

that

the Operator or Pilot location?  I am not sure from my reading of

F3411.

draft-wiethuechter-tmrid-identity-claims.  This section needs some

work.

Anyway here is some review to hopefully help the flow of the meeting

today.

"see" you all soon!

Bob

--

Tm-rid mailing list

[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>

--
Robert Moskowitz
Owner
HTT Consulting
C:      248-219-2059
F:      248-968-2824
E:      [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>

There's no limit to what can be accomplished if it doesn't matter who gets the credit

---

From: "Wiethuechter, Adam" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 May 2020 10:38:44 -0400

Bob,

In the Location/Vector message of F3411 they are looking for the position
of the UA specifically.
The System message holds the location information of the GCS, nominally
where the Pilot would be.

-- 
73's,
Adam T. Wiethuechter
AX Enterprize, LLC

---

From: Robert Moskowitz <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 May 2020 10:46:28 -0400

Oops.  I referenced the wrong Message.  Thank you Adam for the correction!

 From F3411, Table 1, Common Data Dictionary

Operator Latitude: Provides the location associated with the Remote Pilot.
                 Special Values: Invalid, No Value, or Unknown: 0 deg 
(both Lat/Lon)

So here, Operator == Remote Pilot.  In other references, the Operator is 
the UAS owner, not necessarily the "pilot".  This makes it hard for us 
to be clear in matching terminology.

Phun for all.

Bob

On 5/27/20 10:38 AM, Wiethuechter, Adam wrote:
> Bob,
>
> In the Location/Vector message of F3411 they are looking for the 
> position of the UA specifically.
> The System message holds the location information of the GCS, 
> nominally where the Pilot would be.
>
> On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 8:20 AM Robert Moskowitz 
> <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>
>     [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>