Subject: [Drip] ASTM F38.02 next ver support for Session IDs

From: Robert Moskowitz <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2021 15:59:26 -0400

In the language of FAA Final Rules, what we here in DRIP are proposing 
for Remote ID is called a "Session ID".  This does not define HOW many 
"operations" (flights) said Session ID can be used for.  Just it is NOT 
CAA assigned, CT 2063-A, or UUID.

Currently the 25 bytes (after ASTM Message Type) for the Basic Message 
that carries the Remote ID is:

4bits    ID Type
4bits    UA Type
20bytes  Remote ID value
3bytes   Reserved

The current discussion is to assign ID Type = 4 for Session IDs.

Then there will be 1 byte for SessionID type and 19 bytes for SessionID 
value.

Our 16 bytes will fit into those 19 bytes.  :)

This will call on SOME entity to maintain a registry of Session ID 
types.  I think this should be ICAO and will be talking to them about this.

This also brings forward that I never say how to place the 16 byte HHIT 
in the Remote ID field.  Left justified NULL filled?

Comments?

This may result in some text changes in drip-arch and definitely in 
drip-rid.

All for right now.

---

From: "Card, Stu" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2021 16:39:33 -0400

I have had some dialog with the FAA on this. If ASTM does not include a
complete Session ID assignment & resolution process in the revision of
F3411 or its associated Means Of Compliance (MOC), FAA would be receptive
to a DRIP based Session ID MOC. :-)

On Thu, Apr 15, 2021, 3:59 PM Robert Moskowitz <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> --
> Tm-rid mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tm-rid
>

---

From: Robert Moskowitz <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2021 16:41:28 -0400

Given what the ASTM MOC will be covering, we only want an addendum to 
theirs.

On 4/15/21 4:39 PM, Card, Stu wrote:
> I have had some dialog with the FAA on this. If ASTM does not include 
> a complete Session ID assignment & resolution process in the revision 
> of F3411 or its associated Means Of Compliance (MOC), FAA would be 
> receptive to a DRIP based Session ID MOC. :-)
>
> On Thu, Apr 15, 2021, 3:59 PM Robert Moskowitz 
> <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>
>     [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>
>     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tm-rid>
>
>

-- 
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: "Card, Stu" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2021 16:43:23 -0400

Also, as ICAO is already turning to ICANN for help with some things, likely
ICAO would sponsor ICANN (or a commercial registry operator) to actually
run such a registry. While registrars are many, and there also a number of
TLD sponsors, actual registry operators are few (it is real work requiring
specialized knowledge).