rfc9434.original | rfc9434.txt | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
drip S. Card | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) S. Card | |||
Internet-Draft A. Wiethuechter | Request for Comments: 9434 A. Wiethuechter | |||
Intended status: Informational AX Enterprize | Category: Informational AX Enterprize | |||
Expires: 6 September 2023 R. Moskowitz | ISSN: 2070-1721 R. Moskowitz | |||
HTT Consulting | HTT Consulting | |||
S. Zhao (Editor) | S. Zhao, Ed. | |||
Intel | Intel | |||
A. Gurtov | A. Gurtov | |||
Linköping University | Linköping University | |||
5 March 2023 | July 2023 | |||
Drone Remote Identification Protocol (DRIP) Architecture | Drone Remote Identification Protocol (DRIP) Architecture | |||
draft-ietf-drip-arch-31 | ||||
Abstract | Abstract | |||
This document describes an architecture for protocols and services to | This document describes an architecture for protocols and services to | |||
support Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) Remote Identification (RID) | support Unmanned Aircraft System Remote Identification and tracking | |||
and tracking, plus UAS RID-related communications. This architecture | (UAS RID), plus UAS-RID-related communications. This architecture | |||
adheres to the requirements listed in the DRIP Requirements document | adheres to the requirements listed in the Drone Remote Identification | |||
(RFC 9153). | Protocol (DRIP) Requirements document (RFC 9153). | |||
Status of This Memo | Status of This Memo | |||
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the | This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is | |||
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. | published for informational purposes. | |||
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering | ||||
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute | ||||
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- | ||||
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. | ||||
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months | This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force | |||
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any | (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has | |||
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference | received public review and has been approved for publication by the | |||
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." | Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Not all documents | |||
approved by the IESG are candidates for any level of Internet | ||||
Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 7841. | ||||
This Internet-Draft will expire on 6 September 2023. | Information about the current status of this document, any errata, | |||
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at | ||||
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9434. | ||||
Copyright Notice | Copyright Notice | |||
Copyright (c) 2023 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the | Copyright (c) 2023 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the | |||
document authors. All rights reserved. | document authors. All rights reserved. | |||
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal | This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal | |||
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/ | Provisions Relating to IETF Documents | |||
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. | (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of | |||
publication of this document. Please review these documents | ||||
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights | carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect | |||
and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components | to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must | |||
extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as | include Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the | |||
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are | Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described | |||
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License. | in the Revised BSD License. | |||
Table of Contents | Table of Contents | |||
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 | 1. Introduction | |||
1.1. Overview of UAS RID and its Standardization . . . . . . . 3 | 1.1. Overview of UAS RID and Its Standardization | |||
1.2. Overview of Types of UAS Remote ID . . . . . . . . . . . 4 | 1.2. Overview of Types of UAS Remote ID | |||
1.2.1. Broadcast RID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 | 1.2.1. Broadcast RID | |||
1.2.2. Network RID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 | 1.2.2. Network RID | |||
1.3. Overview of USS Interoperability . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 | 1.3. Overview of USS Interoperability | |||
1.4. Overview of DRIP Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 | 1.4. Overview of DRIP Architecture | |||
2. Terms and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 | 2. Terms and Definitions | |||
2.1. Additional Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 | 2.1. Additional Abbreviations | |||
2.2. Additional Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 | 2.2. Additional Definitions | |||
3. HHIT as the DRIP Entity Identifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 | 3. HHIT as the DRIP Entity Identifier | |||
3.1. UAS Remote Identifiers Problem Space . . . . . . . . . . 12 | 3.1. UAS Remote Identifiers Problem Space | |||
3.2. HHIT as a Cryptographic Identifier . . . . . . . . . . . 13 | 3.2. HHIT as a Cryptographic Identifier | |||
3.3. HHIT as A Trustworthy DRIP Entity Identifier . . . . . . 13 | 3.3. HHIT as a Trustworthy DRIP Entity Identifier | |||
3.4. HHIT for DRIP Identifier Registration and Lookup . . . . 15 | 3.4. HHIT for DRIP Identifier Registration and Lookup | |||
4. DRIP Identifier Registration and Registries . . . . . . . . . 15 | 4. DRIP Identifier Registration and Registries | |||
4.1. Public Information Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 | 4.1. Public Information Registry | |||
4.1.1. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 | 4.1.1. Background | |||
4.1.2. Public DRIP Identifier Registry . . . . . . . . . . . 16 | 4.1.2. Public DRIP Identifier Registry | |||
4.2. Private Information Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 | 4.2. Private Information Registry | |||
4.2.1. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 | 4.2.1. Background | |||
4.2.2. Information Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 | 4.2.2. Information Elements | |||
4.2.3. Private DRIP Identifier Registry Methods . . . . . . 17 | 4.2.3. Private DRIP Identifier Registry Methods | |||
4.2.4. Alternative Private DRIP Registry Methods . . . . . . 17 | 4.2.4. Alternative Private DRIP Registry Methods | |||
5. DRIP Identifier Trust . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 | 5. DRIP Identifier Trust | |||
6. Harvesting Broadcast Remote ID messages for UTM Inclusion . . 18 | 6. Harvesting Broadcast Remote ID Messages for UTM Inclusion | |||
6.1. The CS-RID Finder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 | 6.1. The CS-RID Finder | |||
6.2. The CS-RID SDSP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 | 6.2. The CS-RID SDSP | |||
7. DRIP Contact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 | 7. DRIP Contact | |||
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 | 8. IANA Considerations | |||
8.1. Private Key Physical Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 | 9. Security Considerations | |||
8.2. Quantum Resistant Cryptography . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 | 9.1. Private Key Physical Security | |||
8.3. Denial Of Service (DoS) Protection . . . . . . . . . . . 22 | 9.2. Quantum Resistant Cryptography | |||
8.4. Spoofing & Replay Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 | 9.3. Denial of Service (DoS) Protection | |||
8.5. Timestamps & Time Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 | 9.4. Spoofing & Replay Protection | |||
9. Privacy & Transparency Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 | 9.5. Timestamps & Time Sources | |||
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 | 10. Privacy & Transparency Considerations | |||
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 | 11. References | |||
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 | 11.1. Normative References | |||
11.2. Informative References | ||||
Appendix A. Overview of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Traffic | Appendix A. Overview of UAS Traffic Management (UTM) | |||
Management (UTM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 | A.1. Operation Concept | |||
A.1. Operation Concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 | A.2. UAS Service Supplier (USS) | |||
A.2. UAS Service Supplier (USS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 | A.3. UTM Use Cases for UAS Operations | |||
A.3. UTM Use Cases for UAS Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 | Appendix B. Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast (ADS-B) | |||
Appendix B. Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast | Acknowledgments | |||
(ADS-B) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 | Authors' Addresses | |||
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 | ||||
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 | ||||
1. Introduction | 1. Introduction | |||
This document describes an architecture for protocols and services to | This document describes an architecture for protocols and services to | |||
support Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) Remote Identification (RID) | support Unmanned Aircraft System Remote Identification and tracking | |||
and tracking, plus RID-related communications. The architecture | (UAS RID), plus UAS-RID-related communications. The architecture | |||
takes into account both current (including proposed) regulations and | takes into account both current (including proposed) regulations and | |||
non-IETF technical standards. | non-IETF technical standards. | |||
The architecture adheres to the requirements listed in the DRIP | The architecture adheres to the requirements listed in the DRIP | |||
Requirements document [RFC9153] and illustrates how all of them can | Requirements document [RFC9153] and illustrates how all of them can | |||
be met, except for GEN-7 QoS, which is left for future work. The | be met, except for GEN-7 QoS, which is left for future work. The | |||
requirements document provides an extended introduction to the | requirements document provides an extended introduction to the | |||
problem space and use cases. Further, this architecture document | problem space and use cases. Further, this architecture document | |||
frames the DRIP Entity Tag (DET) [I-D.ietf-drip-rid] within the | frames the DRIP Entity Tag (DET) [RFC9374] within the architecture. | |||
architecture. | ||||
1.1. Overview of UAS RID and its Standardization | 1.1. Overview of UAS RID and Its Standardization | |||
UAS RID is an application that enables UAS to be identified by UAS | UAS RID is an application that enables UAS to be identified by UAS | |||
Traffic Management (UTM) and UAS Service Suppliers (USS) (Appendix A) | Traffic Management (UTM), UAS Service Suppliers (USS) (Appendix A), | |||
and third party entities such as law enforcement. Many | and third-party entities, such as law enforcement. Many | |||
considerations (e.g., safety and security) dictate that UAS be | considerations (e.g., safety and security) dictate that UAS be | |||
remotely identifiable. | remotely identifiable. | |||
Civil Aviation Authorities (CAAs) worldwide are mandating UAS RID. | Civil Aviation Authorities (CAAs) worldwide are mandating UAS RID. | |||
CAAs currently promulgate performance-based regulations that do not | CAAs currently promulgate performance-based regulations that do not | |||
specify techniques, but rather cite industry consensus technical | specify techniques but rather cite industry consensus technical | |||
standards as acceptable means of compliance. | standards as acceptable means of compliance. | |||
USA Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) | USA Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) | |||
The FAA published a Notice of Proposed Rule Making [NPRM] in 2019 | The FAA published a Notice of Proposed Rule Making [NPRM] in 2019 | |||
and thereafter published a "Final Rule" in 2021 [FAA_RID], | and thereafter published a "Final Rule" in 2021 [FAA_RID], | |||
imposing requirements on UAS manufacturers and operators, both | imposing requirements on UAS manufacturers and operators, both | |||
commercial and recreational. The rule states that Automatic | commercial and recreational. The rule states that Automatic | |||
Dependent Surveillance Broadcast (ADS-B) Out and transponders | Dependent Surveillance Broadcast (ADS-B) Out and transponders | |||
cannot be used to satisfy the UAS RID requirements on UAS to which | cannot be used to satisfy the UAS RID requirements on UAS to which | |||
the rule applies (see Appendix B). | the rule applies (see Appendix B). | |||
European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) | European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) | |||
In pursuit of the "U-space" concept of a single European airspace | In pursuit of the "U-space" concept of a single European airspace | |||
safely shared by manned and unmanned aircraft, the EASA published | safely shared by manned and unmanned aircraft, the EASA published | |||
a [Delegated] regulation in 2019 imposing requirements on UAS | a [Delegated] regulation in 2019, imposing requirements on UAS | |||
manufacturers and third-country operators, including but not | manufacturers and third-country operators, including but not | |||
limited to UAS RID requirements. The same year, EASA also | limited to UAS RID requirements. The same year, the EASA also | |||
published an [Implementing] regulation laying down detailed rules | published a regulation [Implementing], laying down detailed rules | |||
and procedures for UAS operations and operating personnel, which | and procedures for UAS operations and operating personnel, which | |||
then was updated in 2021 [Implementing_update]. A Notice of | then was updated in 2021 [Implementing_update]. A Notice of | |||
Proposed Amendment [NPA] was published in 2021 to provide more | Proposed Amendment [NPA] was published in 2021 to provide more | |||
information about the development of acceptable means of | information about the development of acceptable means of | |||
compliance and guidance material to support U-space regulations. | compliance and guidance material to support U-space regulations. | |||
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) | American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) | |||
ASTM International, Technical Committee F38 (UAS), Subcommittee | ASTM International, Technical Committee F38 (UAS), Subcommittee | |||
F38.02 (Aircraft Operations), Work Item WK65041, developed the | F38.02 (Aircraft Operations), Work Item WK65041 developed an ASTM | |||
ASTM [F3411-22a] Standard Specification for Remote ID and | standard [F3411-22a], titled "Standard Specification for Remote ID | |||
Tracking. | and Tracking". | |||
ASTM defines one set of UAS RID information and two means, MAC- | ||||
layer broadcast and IP-layer network, of communicating it. If an | ||||
UAS uses both communication methods, the same information must be | ||||
provided via both means. [F3411-22a] is the technical standard | ||||
basis of the [F3586-22] "Means Of Compliance" (MOC) accepted by | ||||
the FAA as per [MOC-NOA] to the FAA's UAS RID final rule [FAA_RID] | ||||
and is expected to be accepted by some other CAAs. | ||||
The 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) | ASTM defines one set of UAS RID information and two means, Media | |||
Access Control (MAC) layer broadcast and IP layer network, of | ||||
communicating it. If a UAS uses both communication methods, the | ||||
same information must be provided via both means. [F3411-22a] is | ||||
the technical standard basis of the Means Of Compliance (MOC) | ||||
specified in [F3586-22]. The FAA has accepted [F3586-22] as a MOC | ||||
to the FAA's UAS RID Final Rule [FAA_RID], with some caveats, as | ||||
per [MOC-NOA]. Other CAAs are expected to accept the same or | ||||
other MOCs likewise based on [F3411-22a]. | ||||
3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) | ||||
With Release 16, the 3GPP completed the UAS RID requirement study | With Release 16, the 3GPP completed the UAS RID requirement study | |||
[TS-22.825] and proposed a set of use cases in the mobile network | [TR-22.825] and proposed a set of use cases in the mobile network | |||
and services that can be offered based on UAS RID. The Release 17 | and services that can be offered based on UAS RID. The Release 17 | |||
study [TR-23.755] and specification [TS-23.255] focus on enhanced | study [TR-23.755] and specification [TS-23.255] focus on enhanced | |||
UAS service requirements and provides the protocol and application | UAS service requirements and provide the protocol and application | |||
architecture support that will be applicable for both 4G and 5G | architecture support that will be applicable for both 4G and 5G | |||
networks. The study of Further Architecture Enhancement for | networks. The study of Further Architecture Enhancement for | |||
Uncrewed Aerial Vehicles (UAV) and Urban Air Mobility (UAM) | Uncrewed Aerial Vehicles (UAV) and Urban Air Mobility (UAM) in | |||
[FS_AEUA] in Release 18 further enhances the communication | Release 18 [FS_AEUA] further enhances the communication mechanism | |||
mechanism between UAS and USS/UTM. The DRIP Entity Tag in | between UAS and USS/UTM. The DET in Section 3 may be used as the | |||
Section 3 may be used as the 3GPP CAA-level UAS ID for Remote | 3GPP CAA-level UAS ID for RID purposes. | |||
Identification purposes. | ||||
1.2. Overview of Types of UAS Remote ID | 1.2. Overview of Types of UAS Remote ID | |||
This specification introduces two types of UAS Remote ID defined in | This specification introduces two types of UAS Remote IDs as defined | |||
ASTM [F3411-22a]. | in ASTM [F3411-22a]. | |||
1.2.1. Broadcast RID | 1.2.1. Broadcast RID | |||
[F3411-22a] defines a set of UAS RID messages for direct, one-way, | [F3411-22a] defines a set of UAS RID messages for direct, one-way | |||
broadcast transmissions from the UA over Bluetooth or Wi-Fi. These | broadcast transmissions from the Unmanned Aircraft (UA) over | |||
are currently defined as MAC-Layer messages. Internet (or other Wide | Bluetooth or Wi-Fi. These are currently defined as MAC layer | |||
Area Network) connectivity is only needed for UAS registry | messages. Internet (or other Wide Area Network) connectivity is only | |||
information lookup by Observers using the directly received UAS ID. | needed for UAS registry information lookup by Observers using the | |||
Broadcast RID should be functionally usable in situations with no | directly received UAS ID. Broadcast RID should be functionally | |||
Internet connectivity. | usable in situations with no Internet connectivity. | |||
The minimum Broadcast RID data flow is illustrated in Figure 1. | The minimum Broadcast RID data flow is illustrated in Figure 1. | |||
+------------------------+ | +------------------------+ | |||
| Unmanned Aircraft (UA) | | | Unmanned Aircraft (UA) | | |||
+-----------o------------+ | +-----------o------------+ | |||
| | | | |||
| app messages directly over | | app messages directly over | |||
| one-way RF data link (no IP) | | one-way RF data link (no IP) | |||
| | | | |||
v | v | |||
+------------------o-------------------+ | +------------------o-------------------+ | |||
| Observer's device (e.g., smartphone) | | | Observer's device (e.g., smartphone) | | |||
+--------------------------------------+ | +--------------------------------------+ | |||
Figure 1 | Figure 1: Minimum Broadcast RID Data Flow | |||
Broadcast RID provides information only about unmanned aircraft (UA) | Broadcast RID provides information only about UA within direct Radio | |||
within direct Radio Frequency (RF) Line-Of-Sight (LOS), typically | Frequency (RF) Line Of Sight (LOS), typically similar to Visual LOS | |||
similar to Visual LOS (VLOS), with a range up to approximately 1 km. | (VLOS), with a range up to approximately 1 km. This information may | |||
This information may be 'harvested' from received broadcasts and made | be 'harvested' from received broadcasts and made available via the | |||
available via the Internet, enabling surveillance of areas too large | Internet, enabling surveillance of areas too large for local direct | |||
for local direct visual observation or direct RF link-based ID (see | visual observation or direct RF link-based identification (see | |||
Section 6). | Section 6). | |||
1.2.2. Network RID | 1.2.2. Network RID | |||
[F3411-22a], using the same data dictionary that is the basis of | [F3411-22a], using the same data dictionary that is the basis of | |||
Broadcast RID messages, defines a Network Remote Identification (Net- | Broadcast RID messages, defines a Network Remote Identification (Net- | |||
RID) data flow as follows. | RID) data flow as follows. | |||
* The information to be reported via UAS RID is generated by the | * The information to be reported via UAS RID is generated by the | |||
UAS. Typically some of this data is generated by the UA and some | UAS. Typically, some of this data is generated by the UA and some | |||
by the GCS (Ground Control Station), e.g., their respective Global | by the Ground Control Station (GCS), e.g., their respective | |||
Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) derived locations. | locations derived from the Global Navigation Satellite System | |||
(GNSS). | ||||
* The information is sent by the UAS (UA or GCS) via unspecified | * The information is sent by the UAS (UA or GCS) via unspecified | |||
means to the cognizant Network Remote Identification Service | means to the cognizant Network Remote Identification Service | |||
Provider (Net-RID SP), typically the USS under which the UAS is | Provider (Net-RID SP), typically the USS under which the UAS is | |||
operating if participating in UTM. | operating if it is participating in UTM. | |||
* The Net-RID SP publishes via the Discovery and Synchronization | * The Net-RID SP publishes, via the Discovery and Synchronization | |||
Service (DSS) over the Internet that it has operations in various | Service (DSS) over the Internet, that it has operations in various | |||
4-D airspace volumes (Section 2.2 of [RFC9153]), describing the | 4-D airspace volumes (Section 2.2 of [RFC9153]), describing the | |||
volumes but not the operations. | volumes but not the operations. | |||
* An Observer's device, which is expected, but not specified, to be | * An Observer's device, which is expected but not specified to be | |||
web-based, queries a Network Remote Identification Display | based on the Web, queries a Network Remote Identification Display | |||
Provider (Net-RID DP), typically also a USS, about any operations | Provider (Net-RID DP), typically also a USS, about any operations | |||
in a specific 4-D airspace volume. | in a specific 4-D airspace volume. | |||
* Using fully specified web-based methods over the Internet, the | * Using fully specified Web-based methods over the Internet, the | |||
Net-RID DP queries all Net-RID SPs that have operations in volumes | Net-RID DP queries all Net-RID SPs that have operations in volumes | |||
intersecting that of the Observer's query for details on all such | intersecting that of the Observer's query for details on all such | |||
operations. | operations. | |||
* The Net-RID DP aggregates information received from all such Net- | * The Net-RID DP aggregates information received from all such Net- | |||
RID SPs and responds to the Observer's query. | RID SPs and responds to the Observer's query. | |||
The minimum Net-RID data flow is illustrated in Figure 2: | The minimum Net-RID data flow is illustrated in Figure 2: | |||
+-------------+ ****************** | +-------------+ ****************** | |||
skipping to change at page 6, line 52 ¶ | skipping to change at line 281 ¶ | |||
| | * '------*-----o | | | | * '------*-----o | | |||
| | * * | Net-RID DP | | | | * * | Net-RID DP | | |||
| | * .------*-----o | | | | * .------*-----o | | |||
| | * | * +------------+ | | | * | * +------------+ | |||
| | * | * | | | * | * | |||
| | * | * +------------+ | | | * | * +------------+ | |||
+--o-------o--+ * '------*-----o Observer's | | +--o-------o--+ * '------*-----o Observer's | | |||
| GCS | * * | Device | | | GCS | * * | Device | | |||
+-------------+ ****************** +------------+ | +-------------+ ****************** +------------+ | |||
Figure 2 | Figure 2: Minimum Net-RID Data Flow | |||
Command and Control (C2) must flow from the GCS to the UA via some | Command and Control (C2) must flow from the GCS to the UA via some | |||
path. Currently (in the year 2022) this is typically a direct RF | path. Currently (in the year 2023), this is typically a direct RF | |||
link; however, with increasing Beyond Visual Line of Sight (BVLOS) | link; however, with increasing Beyond Visual Line Of Sight (BVLOS) | |||
operations, it is expected often to be a wireless link at either end | operations, it is expected to often be a wireless link at either end | |||
with the Internet between. | with the Internet between. | |||
Telemetry (at least the UA's position and heading) flows from the UA | Telemetry (at least the UA's position and heading) flows from the UA | |||
to the GCS via some path, typically the reverse of the C2 path. | to the GCS via some path, typically the reverse of the C2 path. | |||
Thus, UAS RID information pertaining to both the GCS and the UA can | Thus, UAS RID information pertaining to both the GCS and the UA can | |||
be sent, by whichever has Internet connectivity, to the Net-RID SP, | be sent by whichever has Internet connectivity to the Net-RID SP, | |||
typically the USS managing the UAS operation. | typically the USS managing the UAS operation. | |||
The Net-RID SP forwards UAS RID information via the Internet to | The Net-RID SP forwards UAS RID information via the Internet to | |||
subscribed Net-RID DPs, typically USS. Subscribed Net-RID DPs then | subscribed Net-RID DPs, typically the USS. Subscribed Net-RID DPs | |||
forward RID information via the Internet to subscribed Observer | then forward RID information via the Internet to subscribed Observer | |||
devices. Regulations require and [F3411-22a] describes UAS RID data | devices. Regulations require and [F3411-22a] describes UAS RID data | |||
elements that must be transported end-to-end from the UAS to the | elements that must be transported end to end from the UAS to the | |||
subscribed Observer devices. | subscribed Observer devices. | |||
[F3411-22a] prescribes the protocols between the Net-RID SP, Net-RID | [F3411-22a] prescribes the protocols between the Net-RID SP, Net-RID | |||
DP, and the DSS. It also prescribes data elements (in JSON) between | DP, and DSS. It also prescribes data elements (in JSON) between the | |||
the Observer and the Net-RID DP. DRIP could address standardization | Observer and the Net-RID DP. DRIP could address standardization of | |||
of secure protocols between the UA and GCS (over direct wireless and | secure protocols between the UA and the GCS (over direct wireless and | |||
Internet connection), between the UAS and the Net-RID SP, and/or | Internet connection), between the UAS and the Net-RID SP, and/or | |||
between the Net-RID DP and Observer devices. | between the Net-RID DP and Observer devices. | |||
Informative note: Neither link layer protocols nor the use of | _Neither link-layer protocols nor the use of links (e.g., the link | |||
links (e.g., the link often existing between the GCS and the | often existing between the GCS and the UA) for any purpose other than | |||
UA) for any purpose other than carriage of UAS RID information | carriage of UAS RID information are in the scope of Network RID | |||
is in the scope of [F3411-22a] Network RID. | [F3411-22a]._ | |||
1.3. Overview of USS Interoperability | 1.3. Overview of USS Interoperability | |||
With Net-RID, there is direct communication between each UAS and its | With Net-RID, there is direct communication between each UAS and its | |||
USS. Multiple USS exchange information with the assistance of a DSS | USS. Multiple USS exchange information with the assistance of a DSS | |||
so all USS collectively have knowledge about all activities in a 4D | so all USS collectively have knowledge about all activities in a 4-D | |||
airspace. The interactions among an Observer, multiple UAS, and | airspace. The interactions among an Observer, multiple UAS, and | |||
their USS are shown in Figure 3. | their USS are shown in Figure 3. | |||
+------+ +----------+ +------+ | +------+ +----------+ +------+ | |||
| UAS1 | | Observer | | UAS2 | | | UAS1 | | Observer | | UAS2 | | |||
+---o--+ +-----o----+ +--o---+ | +---o--+ +-----o----+ +--o---+ | |||
| | | | | | | | |||
******|*************|************|****** | ******|*************|************|****** | |||
* | | | * | * | | | * | |||
* | +---o--+ | * | * | +---o--+ | * | |||
skipping to change at page 8, line 24 ¶ | skipping to change at line 341 ¶ | |||
* | | | | | * | * | | | | | * | |||
* +-o--o-+ +--o--+ +-o--o-+ * | * +-o--o-+ +--o--+ +-o--o-+ * | |||
* | o----o DSS o-----o | * | * | o----o DSS o-----o | * | |||
* | USS1 | +-----+ | USS2 | * | * | USS1 | +-----+ | USS2 | * | |||
* | o----------------o | * | * | o----------------o | * | |||
* +------+ +------+ * | * +------+ +------+ * | |||
* * | * * | |||
* Internet * | * Internet * | |||
**************************************** | **************************************** | |||
Figure 3 | Figure 3: Interactions Between Observers, UAS, and USS | |||
1.4. Overview of DRIP Architecture | 1.4. Overview of DRIP Architecture | |||
Figure 4 illustrates a global UAS RID usage scenario. Broadcast RID | Figure 4 illustrates a global UAS RID usage scenario. Broadcast RID | |||
links are not shown as they reach from any UA to any listening | links are not shown, as they reach from any UA to any listening | |||
receiver in range and thus would obscure the intent of the figure. | receiver in range and thus would obscure the intent of the figure. | |||
Figure 4 shows, as context, some entities and interfaces beyond the | Figure 4 shows, as context, some entities and interfaces beyond the | |||
scope of DRIP (as currently (2022) chartered). Multiple UAS are | scope of DRIP (as currently (2023) chartered). Multiple UAS are | |||
shown, each with its own UA controlled by its own GCS, potentially | shown, each with its own UA controlled by its own GCS, potentially | |||
using the same or different USS, with the UA potentially | using the same or different USS, with the UA potentially | |||
communicating directly with each other (V2V) especially for low | communicating directly with each other (V2V), especially for low- | |||
latency safety related purposes (DAA). | latency, safety-related purposes (DAA). | |||
*************** *************** | *************** *************** | |||
* UAS1 * * UAS2 * | * UAS1 * * UAS2 * | |||
* * * * | * * * * | |||
* +--------+ * DAA/V2V * +--------+ * | * +--------+ * DAA/V2V * +--------+ * | |||
* | UA o--*----------------------------------------*--o UA | * | * | UA o--*----------------------------------------*--o UA | * | |||
* +--o--o--+ * * +--o--o--+ * | * +--o--o--+ * * +--o--o--+ * | |||
* | | * +------+ Lookups +------+ * | | * | * | | * +------+ Lookups +------+ * | | * | |||
* | | * | GPOD o------. .------o PSOD | * | | * | * | | * | GPOD o------. .------o PSOD | * | | * | |||
* | | * +------+ | | +------+ * | | * | * | | * +------+ | | +------+ * | | * | |||
skipping to change at page 9, line 39 ¶ | skipping to change at line 389 ¶ | |||
+--o--+ | +--o--+ | |||
| DNS | | | DNS | | |||
+-----+ | +-----+ | |||
DAA: Detect And Avoid | DAA: Detect And Avoid | |||
GPOD: General Public Observer Device | GPOD: General Public Observer Device | |||
PSOD: Public Safety Observer Device | PSOD: Public Safety Observer Device | |||
V2I: Vehicle-to-Infrastructure | V2I: Vehicle-to-Infrastructure | |||
V2V: Vehicle-to-Vehicle | V2V: Vehicle-to-Vehicle | |||
Figure 4 | Figure 4: Global UAS RID Usage Scenario | |||
Informative note: see [RFC9153] for detailed definitions. | | Informative note: See [RFC9153] for detailed definitions. | |||
DRIP is meant to leverage existing Internet resources (standard | DRIP is meant to leverage existing Internet resources (standard | |||
protocols, services, infrastructures, and business models) to meet | protocols, services, infrastructures, and business models) to meet | |||
UAS RID and closely related needs. DRIP will specify how to apply | UAS RID and closely related needs. DRIP will specify how to apply | |||
IETF standards, complementing [F3411-22a] and other external | IETF standards, complementing [F3411-22a] and other external | |||
standards, to satisfy UAS RID requirements. | standards, to satisfy UAS RID requirements. | |||
This document outlines the DRIP architecture in the context of the | This document outlines the DRIP architecture in the context of the | |||
UAS RID architecture. This includes closing the gaps between the | UAS RID architecture. This includes closing the gaps between the | |||
CAAs' Concepts of Operations and [F3411-22a] as it relates to the use | CAAs' concepts of operations and [F3411-22a] as it relates to the use | |||
of Internet technologies and UA direct RF communications. Issues | of Internet technologies and UA-direct RF communications. Issues | |||
include, but are not limited to: | include, but are not limited to: | |||
- Design of trustworthy remote identifiers required by GEN-1 | * the design of trustworthy remote identifiers required by GEN-1 | |||
(Section 3), especially but not exclusively for use as single- | (Section 3), especially but not exclusively for use as single-use | |||
use session IDs. | session IDs, | |||
- Mechanisms to leverage the Domain Name System (DNS [RFC1034]), | * mechanisms to leverage the Domain Name System (DNS) [RFC1034] for | |||
for registering and publishing public and private information | registering and publishing public and private information (see | |||
(see Section 4.1 and Section 4.2) as required by REG-1 and REG- | Sections 4.1 and 4.2), as required by REG-1 and REG-2, | |||
2. | ||||
- Specific authentication methods and message payload formats to | * specific authentication methods and message payload formats to | |||
enable verification that Broadcast RID messages were sent by | enable verification that Broadcast RID messages were sent by the | |||
the claimed sender (Section 5) and that the sender is in the | claimed sender (Section 5) and that the sender is in the claimed | |||
claimed DIME (Section 4 and Section 5) as required by GEN-2. | DRIP Identity Management Entity (DIME) (see Sections 4 and 5), as | |||
required by GEN-2, | ||||
- Harvesting Broadcast RID messages for UTM inclusion, with the | * harvesting Broadcast RID messages for UTM inclusion, with the | |||
optional DRIP extension of Crowd Sourced Remote ID (CS-RID, | optional DRIP extension of Crowdsourced Remote ID (CS-RID) | |||
Section 6), using the DRIP support for gateways required by | (Section 6), using the DRIP support for gateways required by GEN-5 | |||
GEN-5 [RFC9153]. | [RFC9153], | |||
- Methods for instantly establishing secure communications | * methods for instantly establishing secure communications between | |||
between an Observer and the pilot of an observed UAS | an Observer and the pilot of an observed UAS (Section 7), using | |||
(Section 7), using the DRIP support for dynamic contact | the DRIP support for dynamic contact required by GEN-4 [RFC9153], | |||
required by GEN-4 [RFC9153]. | and | |||
- Privacy in UAS RID messages (personal data protection) | * privacy in UAS RID messages (personal data protection) | |||
(Section 9). | (Section 10). | |||
This document should serve as a main point of entry into the set | This document should serve as a main point of entry into the set of | |||
of IETF documents addressing the basic DRIP requirements. | IETF documents addressing the basic DRIP requirements. | |||
2. Terms and Definitions | 2. Terms and Definitions | |||
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", | The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", | |||
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and | "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and | |||
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP | "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in | |||
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all | BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all | |||
capitals, as shown here. | capitals, as shown here. | |||
To encourage comprehension necessary for adoption of DRIP by the | To encourage comprehension necessary for adoption of DRIP by the | |||
intended user community, the UAS community's norms are respected | intended user community, the UAS community's norms are respected | |||
herein. | herein. | |||
This document uses terms defined in [RFC9153]. | This document uses terms defined in [RFC9153]. | |||
Some of the acronyms have plural forms that remain the same as their | Some of the acronyms have plural forms that remain the same as their | |||
singular forms, e.g., UAS can expand to Unmanned Aircraft System | singular forms, e.g., "UAS" can expand to "Unmanned Aircraft System" | |||
(singular) or Unmanned Aircraft Systems (plural), as appropriate for | (singular) or "Unmanned Aircraft Systems" (plural), as appropriate | |||
the context. This usage is consistent with Section 2.2 of [RFC9153]. | for the context. This usage is consistent with Section 2.2 of | |||
[RFC9153]. | ||||
2.1. Additional Abbreviations | 2.1. Additional Abbreviations | |||
DET: DRIP Entity Tag | DET: DRIP Entity Tag | |||
EdDSA: Edwards-Curve Digital Signature Algorithm | EdDSA: Edwards-curve Digital Signature Algorithm | |||
HHIT: Hierarchical HIT | HHIT: Hierarchical HIT | |||
HI: Host Identity | HI: Host Identity | |||
HIP: Host Identity Protocol | HIP: Host Identity Protocol | |||
HIT: Host Identity Tag | HIT: Host Identity Tag | |||
2.2. Additional Definitions | 2.2. Additional Definitions | |||
This section introduces the terms "Claim", "Evidence", "Endorsement", | This section introduces the terms "Claim", "Evidence", "Endorsement", | |||
and "Certificate" as used in DRIP. A DRIP certificate has a | and "Certificate", as used in DRIP. A DRIP certificate has a | |||
different context compared with security certificates and Public Key | different context compared with security certificates and Public Key | |||
Infrastructure used in X.509. | Infrastructure used in X.509. | |||
Claim: | Claim: | |||
A claim shares the same definition as a claim in Remote | ||||
A claim shares the same definition as a claim in RATS [RFC9334]; | ATtestation procedureS (RATS) [RFC9334]; it is a piece of asserted | |||
it is a piece of asserted information, sometimes in the form of a | information, sometimes in the form of a name/value pair. It could | |||
name/value pair. It could also been seen as a predicate (e.g., "X | also been seen as a predicate (e.g., "X is Y", "X has property Y", | |||
is Y", "X has property Y", and most importantly "X owns Y" or "X | and most importantly "X owns Y" or "X is owned by Y"). | |||
is owned by Y"). | ||||
Evidence: | Evidence: | |||
Evidence in DRIP borrows the same definition as in RATS [RFC9334], | ||||
Evidence in DRIP borrows the same definition as in RATS [RFC9334]; | ||||
that is, a set of claims. | that is, a set of claims. | |||
Endorsement: | Endorsement: | |||
An Endorsement is inspired from RATS [RFC9334]; it is a secure | An Endorsement is inspired from RATS [RFC9334]; it is a secure | |||
(i.e. signed) statement vouching the integrity and veracity of | (i.e., signed) statement vouching the integrity and veracity of | |||
evidence. | evidence. | |||
Certificate: | Certificate: | |||
A certificate in DRIP is an endorsement, strictly over identity | A certificate in DRIP is an endorsement, strictly over identity | |||
information, signed by a third party. This third party should be | information, signed by a third party. This third party should be | |||
one with no stake in the endorsement over which it is signing. | one with no stake in the endorsement over which it is signing. | |||
DRIP Identity Management Entity (DIME): | DRIP Identity Management Entity (DIME): | |||
A DIME is an entity that performs functions similar to a domain | ||||
An entity that performs functions similar to a domain registrar/ | registrar/registry. A DIME vets Claims and/or Evidence from a | |||
registry. A DIME vets Claims and/or Evidence from a registrant | registrant and delivers back Endorsements and/or Certificates in | |||
and delivers back Endorsements and/or Certificates in response. | response. It is a high-level entity in the DRIP registration/ | |||
It is a high-level entity in the DRIP registration/provisioning | provisioning process that can hold the role of HHIT Domain | |||
process that can hold the role of HDA, RAA, or root of trust | Authority (HDA), Registered Assigning Authority (RAA), or root of | |||
(typically the HHIT prefix owner or DNS apex owner) for DETs. | trust (typically the HHIT prefix owner or DNS apex owner) for | |||
DETs. | ||||
3. HHIT as the DRIP Entity Identifier | 3. HHIT as the DRIP Entity Identifier | |||
This section describes the DRIP architectural approach to meeting the | This section describes the DRIP architectural approach to meeting the | |||
basic requirements of a DRIP entity identifier within external | basic requirements of a DRIP entity identifier within the external | |||
technical standard ASTM [F3411-22a] and regulatory constraints. It | technical standard ASTM [F3411-22a] and regulatory constraints. It | |||
justifies and explains the use of Hierarchical Host Identity Tags | justifies and explains the use of Hierarchical Host Identity Tags | |||
(HHITs) [I-D.ietf-drip-rid] as self-asserting IPv6 addresses suitable | (HHITs) [RFC9374] as self-asserting IPv6 addresses suitable as a UAS | |||
as a UAS ID type and, more generally, as trustworthy multipurpose | ID type and, more generally, as trustworthy multipurpose remote | |||
remote identifiers. | identifiers. | |||
Self-asserting in this usage means that given the Host Identity (HI), | Self-asserting in this usage means that, given the Host Identity | |||
the HHIT ORCHID construction (see section 3.5 of [I-D.ietf-drip-rid]) | (HI), the HHIT Overlay Routable Cryptographic Hash IDentifier | |||
and a signature of the DIME on the HHIT and HI; the HHIT can be | (ORCHID) construction (see Section 3.5 of [RFC9374]), and a signature | |||
verified by the receiver as a trusted UAS ID. The explicit | of the DIME on the HHIT and HI, the HHIT can be verified by the | |||
registration hierarchy within the HHIT provides registration | receiver as a trusted UAS ID. The explicit registration hierarchy | |||
discovery (managed by a DRIP Identity Management Entity (DIME)) to | within the HHIT provides registration discovery (managed by a DIME) | |||
either yield the HI for a 3rd-party (seeking UAS ID endorsement) | to either yield the HI for third-party (seeking UAS ID endorsement) | |||
validation or prove that the HHIT and HI have been registered | validation or prove that the HHIT and HI have been registered | |||
uniquely. | uniquely. | |||
3.1. UAS Remote Identifiers Problem Space | 3.1. UAS Remote Identifiers Problem Space | |||
A DRIP entity identifier needs to be "Trustworthy" (see DRIP | A DRIP entity identifier needs to be "Trustworthy" (see DRIP | |||
Requirement GEN-1, ID-4 and ID-5 in [RFC9153]). This means that | requirements GEN-1, ID-4, and ID-5 in [RFC9153]). This means that | |||
given a sufficient collection of UAS RID messages, an Observer can | given a sufficient collection of UAS RID messages, an Observer can | |||
establish that the identifier claimed therein uniquely belongs to the | establish that the identifier claimed therein uniquely belongs to the | |||
claimant. To satisfy DRIP requirements and maintain important | claimant. To satisfy DRIP requirements and maintain important | |||
security properties, the DRIP identifier should be self-generated by | security properties, the DRIP identifier should be self-generated by | |||
the entity it names (e.g., a UAS) and registered (e.g., with a USS, | the entity it names (e.g., a UAS) and registered (e.g., with a USS; | |||
see Requirements GEN-3 and ID-2). | see DRIP requirements GEN-3 and ID-2). | |||
However Broadcast RID, especially its support for Bluetooth 4, | However, Broadcast RID, especially its support for Bluetooth 4, | |||
imposes severe constraints. A previous revision of the ASTM UAS RID, | imposes severe constraints. A previous revision of the ASTM UAS RID, | |||
F3411-19, allowed a UAS ID of types (1, 2, and 3), each of 20 bytes. | [F3411-19], allowed a UAS ID of types (1, 2, and 3), each of 20 | |||
[F3411-22a] adds type 4, Specific Session ID, for other Standards | bytes. [F3411-22a] adds type 4, Specific Session ID, for other | |||
Development Organizations (SDOs) to extend ASTM UAS RID. Type 4 uses | Standards Development Organizations (SDOs) to extend ASTM UAS RID. | |||
one byte to index the Specific Session ID subtype, leaving 19 bytes | Type 4 uses one byte to index the Specific Session ID subtype, | |||
(see ID-1 of DRIP Requirements [RFC9153]). As described in Section 3 | leaving 19 bytes (see ID-1 of DRIP Requirements [RFC9153]). As | |||
of [RFC9153], ASTM has allocated Specific Session ID subtype 1 to | described in Section 3 of [RFC9153], ASTM has allocated Specific | |||
IETF DRIP. | Session ID subtype 1 to IETF DRIP. | |||
The maximum ASTM UAS RID Authentication Message payload is 201 bytes | The maximum ASTM UAS RID Authentication Message payload is 201 bytes | |||
each for Authentication Types 1, 2, 3, and 4. [F3411-22a] adds | each for Authentication Types 1, 2, 3, and 4. [F3411-22a] adds | |||
Authentication Type 5 for other SDOs (including the IETF) to extend | Authentication Type 5 for other SDOs (including the IETF) to extend | |||
ASTM UAS RID with Specific Authentication Methods (SAM). With type | ASTM UAS RID with Specific Authentication Methods (SAMs). With Type | |||
5, one of the 201 bytes is consumed to index the SAM Type, leaving | 5, one of the 201 bytes is consumed to index the SAM Type, leaving | |||
only 200 bytes for DRIP authentication payloads, including one or | only 200 bytes for DRIP authentication payloads, including one or | |||
more DRIP entity identifiers and associated authentication data. | more DRIP entity identifiers and associated authentication data. | |||
3.2. HHIT as a Cryptographic Identifier | 3.2. HHIT as a Cryptographic Identifier | |||
The only (known to the authors at the time of this writing) existing | The only (known to the authors at the time of writing) existing types | |||
types of IP address compatible identifiers cryptographically derived | of IP-address-compatible identifiers cryptographically derived from | |||
from the public keys of the identified entities are Cryptographically | the public keys of the identified entities are Cryptographically | |||
Generated Addresses (CGAs) [RFC3972] and Host Identity Tags (HITs) | Generated Addresses (CGAs) [RFC3972] and Host Identity Tags (HITs) | |||
[RFC7401]. CGAs and HITs lack registration/retrieval capability. To | [RFC7401]. CGAs and HITs lack registration/retrieval capability. To | |||
provide this, each HHIT embeds plaintext information designating the | provide this, each HHIT embeds plaintext information designating the | |||
hierarchy within which it is registered and a cryptographic hash of | hierarchy within which it is registered, a cryptographic hash of that | |||
that information concatenated with the entity's public key, etc. | information concatenated with the entity's public key, etc. Although | |||
Although hash collisions may occur, the DIME can detect them and | hash collisions may occur, the DIME can detect them and reject | |||
reject registration requests rather than issue credentials, e.g., by | registration requests rather than issue credentials, e.g., by | |||
enforcing a First Come First Served policy. Pre-image hash attacks | enforcing a First Come First Served policy [RFC8126]. Preimage hash | |||
are also mitigated through this registration process, locking the | attacks are also mitigated through this registration process, locking | |||
HHIT to a specific HI. | the HHIT to a specific HI. | |||
3.3. HHIT as A Trustworthy DRIP Entity Identifier | 3.3. HHIT as a Trustworthy DRIP Entity Identifier | |||
A Remote UAS ID that can be trustworthy for use in Broadcast RID can | A Remote UAS ID that can be trustworthy for use in Broadcast RID can | |||
be built from an asymmetric keypair. In this method, the UAS ID is | be built from an asymmetric key pair. In this method, the UAS ID is | |||
cryptographically derived directly from the public key. The proof of | cryptographically derived directly from the public key. The proof of | |||
UAS ID ownership (verifiable endorsement, versus mere claim) is | UAS ID ownership (verifiable endorsement versus mere claim) is | |||
guaranteed by signing this cryptographic UAS ID with the associated | guaranteed by signing this cryptographic UAS ID with the associated | |||
private key. The association between the UAS ID and the private key | private key. The association between the UAS ID and the private key | |||
is ensured by cryptographically binding the public key with the UAS | is ensured by cryptographically binding the public key with the UAS | |||
ID; more specifically, the UAS ID results from the hash of the public | ID; more specifically, the UAS ID results from the hash of the public | |||
key. The public key is designated as the HI while the UAS ID is | key. The public key is designated as the HI, while the UAS ID is | |||
designated as the HIT. | designated as the HIT. | |||
By construction, the HIT is statistically unique through the | By construction, the HIT is statistically unique through the | |||
mandatory use of cryptographic hash functions with second-preimage | mandatory use of cryptographic hash functions with second-preimage | |||
resistance. The cryptographically-bound addition of the Hierarchy | resistance. The cryptographically bound addition of the hierarchy | |||
and an HHIT registration process provide complete, global HHIT | and a HHIT registration process provide complete, global HHIT | |||
uniqueness. This registration forces the attacker to generate the | uniqueness. This registration forces the attacker to generate the | |||
same public key rather than a public key that generates the same | same public key rather than a public key that generates the same | |||
HHIT. This is in contrast to general IDs (e.g., a UUID or device | HHIT. This is in contrast to general IDs (e.g., a Universally Unique | |||
serial number) as the subject in an X.509 certificate. | Identifier (UUID) or device serial number) as the subject in an X.509 | |||
certificate. | ||||
A UA equipped for Broadcast RID MUST be provisioned not only with its | A UA equipped for Broadcast RID MUST be provisioned not only with its | |||
HHIT but also with the HI public key from which the HHIT was derived | HHIT but also with the HI public key from which the HHIT was derived | |||
and the corresponding private key, to enable message signature. | and the corresponding private key to enable message signature. | |||
A UAS equipped for DRIP enhanced Network RID MUST be provisioned | A UAS equipped for DRIP-enhanced Network RID MUST be provisioned | |||
likewise; the private key resides only in the ultimate source of | likewise; the private key resides only in the ultimate source of | |||
Network RID messages. If the GCS is the source of the Network RID | Network RID messages. If the GCS is the source of the Network RID | |||
messages; the GCS MUST hold the private key. If the UA is the source | messages, the GCS MUST hold the private key. If the UA is the source | |||
of the Network RID messages and they are being relayed by the GCS; | of the Network RID messages and they are being relayed by the GCS, | |||
the UA MUST hold the private key, just as a UA that directly connects | the UA MUST hold the private key, just as a UA that directly connects | |||
to the network rather than through its GCS. | to the network rather than through its GCS. | |||
Each Observer device functioning with Internet connectivity MAY be | Each Observer device functioning with Internet connectivity MAY be | |||
provisioned either with public keys of the DRIP identifier root | provisioned either with public keys of the DRIP identifier root | |||
registries or certificates for subordinate registries; each Observer | registries or certificates for subordinate registries; each Observer | |||
device that needs to operate without Internet connectivity at any | device that needs to operate without Internet connectivity at any | |||
time MUST be so provisioned. | time MUST be so provisioned. | |||
HHITs can also be used throughout the USS/UTM system. Operators and | HHITs can also be used throughout the USS/UTM system. Operators and | |||
Private Information Registries, as well as other UTM entities, can | Private Information Registries, as well as other UTM entities, can | |||
use HHITs for their IDs. Such HHITs can facilitate DRIP security | use HHITs for their IDs. Such HHITs can facilitate DRIP security | |||
functions such as used with HIP to strongly mutually authenticate and | functions, such as those used with HIP, to strongly mutually | |||
encrypt communications. | authenticate and encrypt communications. | |||
A self-endorsement of a HHIT used as a UAS ID can be done in as | A self-endorsement of a HHIT used as a UAS ID can be done in as | |||
little as 88-bytes when Ed25519 [RFC8032] is used by only including | little as 88 bytes when Ed25519 [RFC8032] is used by only including | |||
the 16-byte HHIT, two 4-byte timestamps, and the 64-byte Ed25519 | the 16-byte HHIT, two 4-byte timestamps, and the 64-byte Ed25519 | |||
signature. | signature. | |||
Ed25519 [RFC8032] is used as the HHIT Mandatory to Implement signing | Ed25519 [RFC8032] is used as the HHIT mandatory-to-implement signing | |||
algorithm as [RFC9153] GEN-1 and ID-5 can best be met by restricting | algorithm, as GEN-1 and ID-5 [RFC9153] can best be met by restricting | |||
the HI to 32 bytes. A larger public key would rule out the offline | the HI to 32 bytes. A larger public key would rule out the offline | |||
endorsement feature that fits within the 200-byte Authentication | endorsement feature that fits within the 200-byte Authentication | |||
Message maximum length. Other algorithms that meet this 32 byte | Message maximum length. Other algorithms that meet this 32-byte | |||
constraint can be added as deemed needed. | constraint can be added as deemed needed. | |||
A DRIP identifier can be assigned to a UAS as a static HHIT by its | A DRIP identifier can be assigned to a UAS as a static HHIT by its | |||
manufacturer, such as a single HI and derived HHIT encoded as a | manufacturer, such as a single HI and derived HHIT encoded as a | |||
hardware serial number per [CTA2063A]. Such a static HHIT SHOULD | hardware serial number, per [CTA2063A]. Such a static HHIT SHOULD | |||
only be used to bind one-time use DRIP identifiers to the unique UA. | only be used to bind one-time-use DRIP identifiers to the unique UA. | |||
Depending upon implementation, this may leave a HI private key in the | Depending upon implementation, this may leave a HI private key in the | |||
possession of the manufacturer (see also Section 8). | possession of the manufacturer (see also Section 9). | |||
In general, Internet access may be needed to validate Endorsements or | In general, Internet access may be needed to validate Endorsements or | |||
Certificates. This may be obviated in the most common cases (e.g., | Certificates. This may be obviated in the most common cases (e.g., | |||
endorsement of the UAS ID), even in disconnected environments, by | endorsement of the UAS ID), even in disconnected environments, by | |||
pre-populating small caches on Observer devices with DIME public keys | prepopulating small caches on Observer devices with DIME public keys | |||
and a chain of Endorsements or Certificates (tracing a path through | and a chain of Endorsements or Certificates (tracing a path through | |||
the DIME tree). This is assuming all parties on the trust path also | the DIME tree). This is assuming all parties on the trust path also | |||
use HHITs for their identities. | use HHITs for their identities. | |||
3.4. HHIT for DRIP Identifier Registration and Lookup | 3.4. HHIT for DRIP Identifier Registration and Lookup | |||
UAS RID needs a deterministic lookup mechanism that rapidly provides | UAS RID needs a deterministic lookup mechanism that rapidly provides | |||
actionable information about the identified UA. Given the size | actionable information about the identified UA. Given the size | |||
constraints imposed by the Bluetooth 4 broadcast media, the UAS ID | constraints imposed by the Bluetooth 4 broadcast media, the UAS ID | |||
itself needs to be a non-spoofable inquiry input into the lookup. | itself needs to be a non-spoofable inquiry input into the lookup. | |||
A DRIP registration process based on the explicit hierarchy within a | A DRIP registration process based on the explicit hierarchy within a | |||
HHIT provides manageable uniqueness of the HI for the HHIT. The | HHIT provides manageable uniqueness of the HI for the HHIT. The | |||
hierarchy is defined in [I-D.ietf-drip-rid] and consists of 2-levels, | hierarchy is defined in [RFC9374] and consists of 2 levels: an RAA | |||
a Registered Assigning Authority (RAA) and then a Hierarchical HIT | and then an HDA. The registration within this hierarchy is the | |||
Domain Authority (HDA). The registration within this hierarchy is | defense against a cryptographic hash second-preimage attack on the | |||
the defense against a cryptographic hash second pre-image attack on | HHIT (e.g., multiple HIs yielding the same HHIT; see Requirement ID-3 | |||
the HHIT (e.g., multiple HIs yielding the same HHIT, see Requirement | in [RFC9153]). The First Come First Served registration policy is | |||
ID-3 in [RFC9153]). The First Come First Served registration policy | adequate. | |||
is adequate. | ||||
A lookup of the HHIT into the DIME provides the registered HI for | A lookup of the HHIT into the DIME provides the registered HI for | |||
HHIT proof of ownership and deterministic access to any other needed | HHIT proof of ownership and deterministic access to any other needed | |||
actionable information based on inquiry access authority (more | actionable information based on inquiry access authority (more | |||
details in Section 4.2). | details in Section 4.2). | |||
4. DRIP Identifier Registration and Registries | 4. DRIP Identifier Registration and Registries | |||
DRIP registries hold both public and private UAS information (see | DRIP registries hold both public and private UAS information (see | |||
PRIV-1 in [RFC9153]) resulting from the DRIP identifier registration | PRIV-1 in [RFC9153]) resulting from the DRIP identifier registration | |||
process. Given these different uses, and to improve scalability, | process. Given these different uses, and to improve scalability, | |||
security, and simplicity of administration, the public and private | security, and simplicity of administration, the public and private | |||
information can be stored in different registries. This section | information can be stored in different registries. This section | |||
introduces the public and private information registries for DRIP | introduces the public and private information registries for DRIP | |||
identifiers. This DRIP Identifier registration process satisfies the | identifiers. In this section, for ease of comprehension, the | |||
following DRIP requirements defined in [RFC9153]: GEN-3, GEN-4, ID-2, | registry functions are described (using familiar terminology) without | |||
ID-4, ID-6, PRIV-3, PRIV-4, REG-1, REG-2, REG-3 and REG-4. | detailing their assignment to specific implementing entities (or | |||
using unfamiliar jargon). Elsewhere in this document, and in | ||||
forthcoming documents detailing the DRIP registration processes and | ||||
entities, the more specific term "DRIP Identity Management Entity" | ||||
(DIME) will be used. This DRIP identifier registration process | ||||
satisfies the following DRIP requirements defined in [RFC9153]: GEN- | ||||
3, GEN-4, ID-2, ID-4, ID-6, PRIV-3, PRIV-4, REG-1, REG-2, REG-3, and | ||||
REG-4. | ||||
4.1. Public Information Registry | 4.1. Public Information Registry | |||
4.1.1. Background | 4.1.1. Background | |||
The public information registry provides trustable information such | The public information registry provides trustable information, such | |||
as endorsements of UAS RID ownership and registration with the HDA | as endorsements of UAS RID ownership and registration with the HDA. | |||
(Hierarchical HIT Domain Authority). Optionally, pointers to the | Optionally, pointers to the registries for the HDA and RAA implicit | |||
registries for the HDA and RAA (Registered Assigning Authority) | in the UAS RID can be included (e.g., for HDA and RAA HHIT|HI used in | |||
implicit in the UAS RID can be included (e.g., for HDA and RAA | endorsement signing operations). This public information will be | |||
HHIT|HI used in endorsement signing operations). This public | principally used by Observers of Broadcast RID messages. Data on UAS | |||
information will be principally used by Observers of Broadcast RID | that only use Network RID is available via an Observer's Net-RID DP | |||
messages. Data on UAS that only use Network RID, is available via an | that would directly provide all public registry information. The | |||
Observer's Net-RID DP that would directly provide all public registry | Net-RID DP is the only source of information for a query on an | |||
information. The Net-RID DP is the only source of information for a | airspace volume. | |||
query on an airspace volume. | ||||
| Note: In the above paragraph, | signifies concatenation of | ||||
| information, e.g., X | Y is the concatenation of X and Y. | ||||
4.1.2. Public DRIP Identifier Registry | 4.1.2. Public DRIP Identifier Registry | |||
A DRIP identifier MUST be registered as an Internet domain name (at | A DRIP identifier MUST be registered as an Internet domain name (at | |||
an arbitrary level in the hierarchy, e.g., in .ip6.arpa). Thus DNS | an arbitrary level in the hierarchy, e.g., in .ip6.arpa). Thus, the | |||
can provide all the needed public DRIP information. A standardized | DNS can provide all the needed public DRIP information. A | |||
HHIT FQDN (Fully Qualified Domain Name) can deliver the HI via a HIP | standardized HHIT Fully Qualified Domain Name (FQDN) can deliver the | |||
RR (Resource Record) [RFC8005] and other public information (e.g., | HI via a HIP Resource Record (RR) [RFC8005] and other public | |||
RAA and HDA PTRs, and HIP RVS (Rendezvous Servers) [RFC8004]). These | information (e.g., RAA and HDA PTRs and HIP Rendezvous Servers (RVSs) | |||
public information registries can use DNSSEC to deliver public | [RFC8004]). These public information registries can use DNSSEC to | |||
information that is not inherently trustable (e.g., everything other | deliver public information that is not inherently trustable (e.g., | |||
than endorsements). | everything other than endorsements). | |||
This DNS entry for the HHIT can also provide a revocation service. | This DNS entry for the HHIT can also provide a revocation service. | |||
For example, instead of returning the HI RR it may return some record | For example, instead of returning the HI RR, it may return some | |||
showing that the HI (and thus HHIT) has been revoked. | record showing that the HI (and thus HHIT) has been revoked. | |||
4.2. Private Information Registry | 4.2. Private Information Registry | |||
4.2.1. Background | 4.2.1. Background | |||
The private information required for DRIP identifiers is similar to | The private information required for DRIP identifiers is similar to | |||
that required for Internet domain name registration. A DRIP | that required for Internet domain name registration. A DRIP | |||
identifier solution can leverage existing Internet resources: | identifier solution can leverage existing Internet resources, i.e., | |||
registration protocols, infrastructure, and business models, by | registration protocols, infrastructure, and business models, by | |||
fitting into a UAS ID structure compatible with DNS names. The HHIT | fitting into a UAS ID structure compatible with DNS names. The HHIT | |||
hierarchy can provide the needed scalability and management | hierarchy can provide the needed scalability and management | |||
structure. It is expected that the private information registry | structure. It is expected that the private information registry | |||
function will be provided by the same organizations that run a USS, | function will be provided by the same organizations that run a USS | |||
and likely integrated with a USS. The lookup function may be | and likely integrated with a USS. The lookup function may be | |||
implemented by the Net-RID DPs. | implemented by the Net-RID DPs. | |||
4.2.2. Information Elements | 4.2.2. Information Elements | |||
When a DET is used as a UA's Session ID, the corresponding | When a DET is used as a UA's Session ID, the corresponding | |||
manufacturer assigned serial number MUST be stored in a Private | manufacturer-assigned serial number MUST be stored in a private | |||
Information Registry that can be identified uniquely from the DET. | information registry that can be identified uniquely from the DET. | |||
When a DET is used as either as UA's Session ID or as a UA's | When a DET is used as either a UA's Session ID or a UA's | |||
manufacturer assigned serial number, and the operation is being flown | manufacturer-assigned serial number, and the operation is being flown | |||
under UTM, the corresponding UTM system assigned Operational Intent | under UTM, the corresponding UTM-system-assigned Operational Intent | |||
Identifier SHOULD be so stored. Other information MAY be so stored, | Identifier SHOULD be so stored. Other information MAY be stored as | |||
and often must to satisfy CAA regulations or USS operator policies. | such, and often must, to satisfy CAA regulations or USS operator | |||
policies. | ||||
4.2.3. Private DRIP Identifier Registry Methods | 4.2.3. Private DRIP Identifier Registry Methods | |||
A DRIP private information registry supports essential registry | A DRIP private information registry supports essential registry | |||
operations (e.g., add, delete, update, query) using interoperable | operations (e.g., add, delete, update, and query) using interoperable | |||
open standard protocols. It can accomplish this by leveraging | open standard protocols. It can accomplish this by leveraging | |||
aspects of Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP [RFC5730]) and the | aspects of the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) [RFC5730] and | |||
Registry Data Access Protocol (RDAP [RFC7480] [RFC9082] [RFC9083]). | the Registry Data Access Protocol (RDAP) [RFC7480] [RFC9082] | |||
The DRIP private information registry in which a given UAS is | [RFC9083]. The DRIP private information registry in which a given | |||
registered needs to be findable, starting from the UAS ID, using the | UAS is registered needs to be findable, starting from the UAS ID, | |||
methods specified in [RFC9224]. | using the methods specified in [RFC9224]. | |||
4.2.4. Alternative Private DRIP Registry Methods | 4.2.4. Alternative Private DRIP Registry Methods | |||
A DRIP private information registry might be an access-controlled DNS | A DRIP private information registry might be an access-controlled DNS | |||
(e.g., via DNS over TLS). Additionally, WebFinger [RFC7033] can be | (e.g., via DNS over TLS). Additionally, WebFinger [RFC7033] can be | |||
supported. These alternative methods may be used by Net-RID DP with | supported. These alternative methods may be used by a Net-RID DP | |||
specific customers. | with specific customers. | |||
5. DRIP Identifier Trust | 5. DRIP Identifier Trust | |||
While the DRIP entity identifier is self-asserting, it alone does not | While the DRIP entity identifier is self-asserting, it alone does not | |||
provide the trustworthiness (non-repudiation, protection vs spoofing, | provide the trustworthiness (i.e., non-repudiation, protection vs. | |||
message integrity protection, scalability, etc.) essential to UAS | spoofing, message integrity protection, scalability, etc.) essential | |||
RID, as justified in [RFC9153]. For that it MUST be registered | to UAS RID, as justified in [RFC9153]. For that, it MUST be | |||
(under DRIP Registries) and be actively used by the party (in most | registered (under DRIP registries) and actively used by the party (in | |||
cases the UA). A sender's identity cannot be proved merely by its | most cases the UA). A sender's identity cannot be proved merely by | |||
possessing a DRIP Entity Tag (DET) and broadcasting it as a claim | its possessing of a DRIP Entity Tag (DET) and broadcasting it as a | |||
that it belongs to that sender. Sending data signed using that HI's | claim that it belongs to that sender. Sending data signed using that | |||
private key proves little, as it is subject to trivial replay attacks | HI's private key proves little, as it is subject to trivial replay | |||
using previously broadcast messages. Only sending the DET and a | attacks using previously broadcast messages. Only sending the DET | |||
signature on novel (i.e., frequently changing and unpredictable) data | and a signature on novel (i.e., frequently changing and | |||
that can be externally validated by the Observer (such as a signed | unpredictable) data that can be externally validated by the Observer | |||
Location/Vector message, matching actually seeing the UA at the | (such as a signed Location/Vector message that matches actually | |||
location and time reported in the signed message) proves that the | seeing the UA at the location and time reported in the signed | |||
observed UA possesses the private key and thus the claimed UAS ID. | message) proves that the observed UA possesses the private key and | |||
thus the claimed UAS ID. | ||||
The severe constraints of Broadcast RID make it challenging to | The severe constraints of Broadcast RID make it challenging to | |||
satisfy UAS RID requirements. From received Broadcast RID messages | satisfy UAS RID requirements. From received Broadcast RID messages | |||
and information that can be looked up using the received UAS ID in | and information that can be looked up using the received UAS ID in | |||
online registries or local caches, it is possible to establish levels | online registries or local caches, it is possible to establish levels | |||
of trust in the asserted information and the Operator. | of trust in the asserted information and the operator. | |||
A combination of different DRIP Authentication Messages enables an | A combination of different DRIP Authentication Messages enables an | |||
Observer, without Internet connection (offline) or with (online), to | Observer, without Internet connection (offline) or with (online), to | |||
validate a UAS DRIP ID in real-time. Some messages must contain the | validate a UAS DRIP ID in real time. Some messages must contain the | |||
relevant registration of the UA's DRIP ID in the claimed DIME. Some | relevant registration of the UA's DRIP ID in the claimed DIME. Some | |||
messages must contain sender signatures over both static (e.g., | messages must contain sender signatures over both static (e.g., | |||
registration) and dynamically changing (e.g., current UA location) | registration) and dynamically changing (e.g., current UA location) | |||
data. Combining these two sets of information, an Observer can piece | data. Combining these two sets of information, an Observer can piece | |||
together a chain of trust including real-time evidence to make a | together a chain of trust, including real-time evidence to make a | |||
determination on the UA's claims. | determination on the UA's claims. | |||
This process (combining the DRIP entity identifier, registries, and | This process (combining the DRIP entity identifier, registries, and | |||
authentication formats for Broadcast RID) can satisfy the following | authentication formats for Broadcast RID) can satisfy the following | |||
DRIP requirements defined in [RFC9153]: GEN-1, GEN-2, GEN-3, ID-2, | DRIP requirements defined in [RFC9153]: GEN-1, GEN-2, GEN-3, ID-2, | |||
ID-3, ID-4, and ID-5. | ID-3, ID-4, and ID-5. | |||
6. Harvesting Broadcast Remote ID messages for UTM Inclusion | 6. Harvesting Broadcast Remote ID Messages for UTM Inclusion | |||
ASTM anticipated that regulators would require both Broadcast RID and | ASTM anticipated that regulators would require both Broadcast RID and | |||
Network RID for large UAS, but allow UAS RID requirements for small | Network RID for large UAS but allow UAS RID requirements for small | |||
UAS to be satisfied with the operator's choice of either Broadcast | UAS to be satisfied with the operator's choice of either Broadcast | |||
RID or Network RID. The EASA initially specified Broadcast RID for | RID or Network RID. The EASA initially specified Broadcast RID for | |||
essentially all UAS, and is now also considering Network RID. The | essentially all UAS and is now also considering Network RID. The FAA | |||
FAA UAS RID Final Rules [FAA_RID] permit only Broadcast RID for rule | UAS RID Final Rules [FAA_RID] permit only Broadcast RID for rule | |||
compliance, but still encourage Network RID for complementary | compliance but still encourage Network RID for complementary | |||
functionality, especially in support of UTM. | functionality, especially in support of UTM. | |||
One opportunity is to enhance the architecture with gateways from | One opportunity is to enhance the architecture with gateways from | |||
Broadcast RID to Network RID. This provides the best of both and | Broadcast RID to Network RID. This provides the best of both and | |||
gives regulators and operators flexibility. It offers advantages | gives regulators and operators flexibility. It offers advantages | |||
over either form of UAS RID alone: greater fidelity than Network RID | over either form of UAS RID alone, i.e., greater fidelity than | |||
reporting of planned area operations; surveillance of areas too large | Network RID reporting of [FAA_RID] planned area operations, together | |||
for local direct visual observation and direct RF-LOS link based | with surveillance of areas too large for local direct visual | |||
Broadcast RID (e.g., a city or a national forest). | observation and direct Radio Frequency Line Of Sight (RF-LOS) link- | |||
based Broadcast RID (e.g., a city or a national forest). | ||||
These gateways could be pre-positioned (e.g., around airports, public | These gateways could be pre-positioned (e.g., around airports, public | |||
gatherings, and other sensitive areas) and/or crowd-sourced (as | gatherings, and other sensitive areas) and/or crowdsourced (as | |||
nothing more than a smartphone with a suitable app is needed). | nothing more than a smartphone with a suitable app is needed). | |||
Crowd-sourcing can be encouraged by quid pro quo, providing CS-RID | Crowdsourcing can be encouraged by quid pro quo, providing CS-RID | |||
Surveillance Supplemental Data Service Provider (SDSP) outputs only | Surveillance Supplemental Data Service Provider (SDSP) outputs only | |||
to CS-RID Finders. As Broadcast RID media have limited range, | to CS-RID Finders. As Broadcast RID media have a limited range, | |||
gateways receiving messages claiming locations far from the gateway | messages claiming sender (typically UA) locations far from a physical | |||
can alert authorities or a Surveillance SDSP to the failed sanity | layer receiver thereof ("Finder" below, typically Observer device) | |||
check possibly indicating intent to deceive. CS-RID SDSPs can use | should arouse suspicion of possible intent to deceive; a fast and | |||
messages with precise date/time/position stamps from the gateways to | computationally inexpensive consistency check can be performed (by | |||
multilaterate UA location, independent of the locations claimed in | the Finder or the Surveillance SDSP) on application layer data | |||
the messages, which are entirely operator self-reported in UAS RID | present in the gateway (claimed UA location vs physical receiver | |||
and UTM, and thus are subject not only to natural time lag and error | location), and authorities can be alerted to failed checks. CS-RID | |||
but also operator misconfiguration or intentional deception. | SDSPs can use messages with precise date/time/position stamps from | |||
the gateways to multilaterate UA locations, independent of the | ||||
locations claimed in the messages, which are entirely self-reported | ||||
by the operator in UAS RID and UTM, and thus are subject not only to | ||||
natural time lag and error but also operator misconfiguration or | ||||
intentional deception. | ||||
Multilateration technologies use physical layer information, such as | Multilateration technologies use physical layer information, such as | |||
precise Time Of Arrival (TOA) of transmissions from mobile | precise Time Of Arrival (TOA) of transmissions from mobile | |||
transmitters at receivers with a priori precisely known locations, to | transmitters at receivers with a priori precisely known locations, to | |||
estimate the locations of the mobile transmitters. | estimate the locations of the mobile transmitters. | |||
Further, gateways with additional sensors (e.g., smartphones with | Further, gateways with additional sensors (e.g., smartphones with | |||
cameras) can provide independent information on the UA type and size, | cameras) can provide independent information on the UA type and size, | |||
confirming or refuting those claims made in the UAS RID messages. | confirming or refuting those claims made in the UAS RID messages. | |||
Section 6.1 and Section 6.2 define two additional entities that are | Sections 6.1 and 6.2 define two additional entities that are required | |||
required to provide this Crowd Sourced Remote ID (CS-RID). | to provide this Crowdsourced Remote ID (CS-RID). | |||
This approach satisfies the following DRIP requirements defined in | This approach satisfies the following DRIP requirements defined in | |||
[RFC9153]: GEN-5, GEN-11, and REG-1. As Broadcast messages are | [RFC9153]: GEN-5, GEN-11, and REG-1. As Broadcast messages are | |||
inherently multicast, GEN-10 is met for local-link multicast to | inherently multicast, GEN-10 is met for local-link multicast to | |||
multiple Finders (how multilateration is possible). | multiple Finders (this is how multilateration is possible). | |||
6.1. The CS-RID Finder | 6.1. The CS-RID Finder | |||
A CS-RID Finder is the gateway for Broadcast Remote ID Messages into | A CS-RID Finder is the gateway for Broadcast Remote ID Messages into | |||
UTM. It performs this gateway function via a CS-RID SDSP. A CS-RID | UTM. It performs this gateway function via a CS-RID SDSP. A CS-RID | |||
Finder could implement, integrate, or accept outputs from a Broadcast | Finder could implement, integrate, or accept outputs from a Broadcast | |||
RID receiver. However, it should not depend upon a direct interface | RID receiver. However, it should not depend upon a direct interface | |||
with a GCS, Net-RID SP, Net-RID DP or Net-RID client. It would | with a GCS, Net-RID SP, Net-RID DP, or Net-RID client. It would | |||
present a new interface to a CS-RID SDSP, similar to but readily | present a new interface to a CS-RID SDSP, similar to but readily | |||
distinguishable from that which a UAS (UA or GCS) presents to a Net- | distinguishable from that which a UAS (UA or GCS) presents to a Net- | |||
RID SP. | RID SP. | |||
6.2. The CS-RID SDSP | 6.2. The CS-RID SDSP | |||
A CS-RID SDSP aggregates and processes (e.g., estimates UA location | A CS-RID SDSP aggregates and processes (e.g., estimates UA locations | |||
using multilateration when possible) information collected by CS-RID | using multilateration when possible) information collected by CS-RID | |||
Finders. A CS-RID SDSP should present the same interface to a Net- | Finders. A CS-RID SDSP should present the same interface to a Net- | |||
RID SP as does a Net-RID DP and to a Net-RID DP as does a Net-RID SP, | RID SP as it does to a Net-RID DP and to a Net-RID DP as it does to a | |||
but its data source must be readily distinguishable as via Finders | Net-RID SP, but its data source must be readily distinguishable via | |||
rather than direct from the UAS itself. | Finders rather than direct from the UAS itself. | |||
7. DRIP Contact | 7. DRIP Contact | |||
One of the ways in which DRIP can enhance [F3411-22a] with | One of the ways in which DRIP can enhance [F3411-22a] with | |||
immediately actionable information is by enabling an Observer to | immediately actionable information is by enabling an Observer to | |||
instantly initiate secure communications with the UAS remote pilot, | instantly initiate secure communications with the UAS remote pilot, | |||
Pilot In Command, operator, USS under which the operation is being | Pilot In Command, operator, USS under which the operation is being | |||
flown, or other entity potentially able to furnish further | flown, or other entity potentially able to furnish further | |||
information regarding the operation and its intent and/or to | information regarding the operation and its intent and/or to | |||
immediately influence further conduct or termination of the operation | immediately influence further conduct or termination of the operation | |||
(e.g., land or otherwise exit an airspace volume). Such potentially | (e.g., land or otherwise exit an airspace volume). Such potentially | |||
distracting communications demand strong "AAA" (Authentication, | distracting communications demand strong "AAA" (Authentication, | |||
Attestation, Authorization, Access Control, Accounting, Attribution, | Attestation, Authorization, Access Control, Accounting, Attribution, | |||
Audit) per applicable policies (e.g., of the cognizant CAA). | Audit), per applicable policies (e.g., of the cognizant CAA). | |||
A DRIP entity identifier based on a HHIT as outlined in Section 3 | A DRIP entity identifier based on a HHIT, as outlined in Section 3, | |||
embeds an identifier of the DIME in which it can be found (expected | embeds an identifier of the DIME in which it can be found (expected | |||
typically to be the USS under which the UAS is flying) and the | typically to be the USS under which the UAS is flying), and the | |||
procedures outlined in Section 5 enable Observer verification of that | procedures outlined in Section 5 enable Observer verification of that | |||
relationship. A DRIP entity identifier with suitable records in | relationship. A DRIP entity identifier with suitable records in | |||
public and private registries as outlined in Section 5 can enable | public and private registries, as outlined in Section 5, can enable | |||
lookup not only of information regarding the UAS, but also identities | lookup not only of information regarding the UAS but also identities | |||
of and pointers to information regarding the various associated | of and pointers to information regarding the various associated | |||
entities (e.g., the USS under which the UAS is flying an operation), | entities (e.g., the USS under which the UAS is flying an operation), | |||
including means of contacting those associated entities (i.e., | including means of contacting those associated entities (i.e., | |||
locators, typically IP addresses). | locators, typically IP addresses). | |||
A suitably equipped Observer could initiate a secure communication | A suitably equipped Observer could initiate a secure communication | |||
channel, using the DET HI, to a similarly equipped and identified | channel, using the DET HI, to a similarly equipped and identified | |||
entity: the UA itself, if operating autonomously; the GCS, if the UA | entity, i.e., the UA itself, if operating autonomously; the GCS, if | |||
is remotely piloted and the necessary records have been populated in | the UA is remotely piloted and the necessary records have been | |||
DNS; the USS, etc. Assuming secure communication setup (e.g. via | populated in the DNS; the USS; etc. Assuming secure communication | |||
IPsec or HIP), arbitrary standard higher layer protocols can then be | setup (e.g., via IPsec or HIP), arbitrary standard higher-layer | |||
used for Observer to Pilot (O2P) communications (e.g., SIP [RFC3261] | protocols can then be used for Observer to Pilot (O2P) communications | |||
et seq), V2X communications (e.g., [MAVLink]), etc. Certain | (e.g., SIP [RFC3261] et seq), Vehicle to Everything (V2X) (or more | |||
preconditions are necessary: each party needs a currently usable | specifically Aircraft to Anything (A2X)) communications (e.g., | |||
means (typically DNS) of resolving the other party's DRIP entity | [MAVLink]), etc. Certain preconditions are necessary: 1) each party | |||
identifier to a currently usable locator (IP address); and there must | needs a currently usable means (typically a DNS) of resolving the | |||
be currently usable bidirectional IP (not necessarily Internet) | other party's DRIP entity identifier to a currently usable locator | |||
connectivity between the parties. One method directly supported by | (IP address), and 2) there must be currently usable bidirectional IP | |||
the use of HHITs as DRIP entity identifiers is initiation of a HIP | connectivity (not necessarily via the Internet) between the parties. | |||
Base Exchange (BEX) and Bound End-to-End Tunnel (BEET). | One method directly supported by the use of HHITs as DRIP entity | |||
identifiers is initiation of a HIP Base Exchange (BEX) and Bound End- | ||||
to-End Tunnel (BEET). | ||||
This approach satisfies DRIP requirement GEN-6 Contact, supports | This approach satisfies DRIP requirement GEN-6 Contact, supports | |||
satisfaction of requirements [RFC9153] GEN-8, GEN-9, PRIV-2, PRIV-5 | satisfaction of DRIP requirements GEN-8, GEN-9, PRIV-2, PRIV-5, and | |||
and REG-3, and is compatible with all other DRIP requirements. | REG-3 [RFC9153], and is compatible with all other DRIP requirements. | |||
8. Security Considerations | 8. IANA Considerations | |||
The size of the public key hash in the HHIT is vulnerable to a second | This document has no IANA actions. | |||
preimage attack. It is well within current server array technology | ||||
to compute another key pair that hashes to the same HHIT (given the | 9. Security Considerations | |||
current ORCHID construction hash length to fit UAS RID and IPv6 | ||||
address constraints). Thus, if a receiver were to check HHIT/HI pair | The size of the public key hash in the HHIT is vulnerable to a | |||
validity only by verifying that the received HI and associated | second-preimage attack. It is well within current server array | |||
technology to compute another key pair that hashes to the same HHIT | ||||
(given the current ORCHID construction hash length to fit UAS RID and | ||||
IPv6 address constraints). Thus, if a receiver were to check HHIT/HI | ||||
pair validity only by verifying that the received HI and associated | ||||
information, when hashed in the ORCHID construction, reproduce the | information, when hashed in the ORCHID construction, reproduce the | |||
received HHIT, an adversary could impersonate a validly registered | received HHIT, an adversary could impersonate a validly registered | |||
UA. To defend against this, online receivers should verify the | UA. To defend against this, online receivers should verify the | |||
received HHIT and received HI with the HDA (typically USS) with which | received HHIT and received HI with the HDA (typically USS) with which | |||
the HHIT/HI pair purports to be registered. Online and offline | the HHIT/HI pair purports to be registered. Online and offline | |||
receivers can use a chain of received DRIP link endorsements from a | receivers can use a chain of received DRIP link endorsements from a | |||
root of trust through the RAA and the HDA to the UA, e.g., as | root of trust through the RAA and the HDA to the UA, e.g., as | |||
described in [I-D.ietf-drip-auth] and [I-D.ietf-drip-registries]. | described in [DRIP-AUTH] and [DRIP-REGISTRIES]. | |||
Compromise of a DIME private key could do widespread harm | Compromise of a DIME private key could do widespread harm | |||
[I-D.ietf-drip-registries]. In particular, it would allow bad actors | [DRIP-REGISTRIES]. In particular, it would allow bad actors to | |||
to impersonate trusted members of said DIME. These risks are in | impersonate trusted members of said DIME. These risks are in | |||
addition to those involving key management practices and will be | addition to those involving key management practices and will be | |||
addressed as part of the DIME process. All DRIP public keys can be | addressed as part of the DIME process. All DRIP public keys can be | |||
found in DNS thus they can be revoked in DNS and users SHOULD check | found in the DNS, thus they can be revoked in the DNS, and users | |||
DNS when available. Specific key revocation procedures are as yet to | SHOULD check the DNS when available. Specific key revocation | |||
be determined. | procedures are as yet to be determined. | |||
8.1. Private Key Physical Security | 9.1. Private Key Physical Security | |||
The security provided by asymmetric cryptographic techniques depends | The security provided by asymmetric cryptographic techniques depends | |||
upon protection of the private keys. It may be necessary for the GCS | upon protection of the private keys. It may be necessary for the GCS | |||
to have the key pair to register the HHIT to the USS. Thus it may be | to have the key pair to register the HHIT to the USS. Thus, it may | |||
the GCS that generates the key pair and delivers it to the UA, making | be the GCS that generates the key pair and delivers it to the UA, | |||
the GCS a part of the key security boundary. Leakage of the private | making the GCS a part of the key security boundary. Leakage of the | |||
key either from the UA or GCS to the component manufacturer is a | private key, from either the UA or the GCS, to the component | |||
valid concern and steps need to be in place to ensure safe keeping of | manufacturer is a valid concern, and steps need to be in place to | |||
the private key. Since it is possible for the UAS RID sender of a | ensure safe keeping of the private key. Since it is possible for the | |||
small harmless UA (or the entire UA) to be carried by a larger | UAS RID sender of a small harmless UA (or the entire UA) to be | |||
dangerous UA as a "false flag", it is out of scope to deal with | carried by a larger dangerous UA as a "false flag", it is out of | |||
secure storage of the private key. | scope to deal with secure storage of the private key. | |||
8.2. Quantum Resistant Cryptography | 9.2. Quantum Resistant Cryptography | |||
There has been no effort as yet in DRIP to address post quantum | There has been no effort as of yet in DRIP to address post quantum | |||
computing cryptography. Small UAS and Broadcast Remote ID | computing cryptography. Small UAS and Broadcast Remote ID | |||
communications are so constrained that current post quantum computing | communications are so constrained that current post quantum computing | |||
cryptography is not applicable. Fortunately, since a UA may use a | cryptography is not applicable. Fortunately, since a UA may use a | |||
unique HHIT for each operation, the attack window can be limited to | unique HHIT for each operation, the attack window can be limited to | |||
the duration of the operation. One potential future DRIP use for | the duration of the operation. One potential future DRIP use for | |||
post quantum cryptography is for keypairs that have long usage lives, | post quantum cryptography is for key pairs that have long usage lives | |||
but rarely if ever need to be transmitted over bandwidth constrained | but that rarely, if ever, need to be transmitted over bandwidth | |||
links; such as for Serial Numbers or Operators. As the HHIT contains | constrained links, such as for serial numbers or operators. As the | |||
the ID for the cryptographic suite used in its creation, a future | HHIT contains the ID for the cryptographic suite used in its | |||
post quantum computing safe algorithm that fits Remote ID constraints | creation, a future post quantum computing safe algorithm that fits | |||
may readily be added. This is left for future work. | Remote ID constraints may be readily added. This is left for future | |||
work. | ||||
8.3. Denial Of Service (DoS) Protection | 9.3. Denial of Service (DoS) Protection | |||
Remote ID services from the UA use a wireless link in a public space. | Remote ID services from the UA use a wireless link in a public space. | |||
As such, they are open to many forms of RF jamming. It is trivial | As such, they are open to many forms of RF jamming. It is trivial | |||
for an attacker to stop any UA messages from reaching a wireless | for an attacker to stop any UA messages from reaching a wireless | |||
receiver. Thus it is pointless to attempt to provide relief from DOS | receiver. Thus, it is pointless to attempt to provide relief from | |||
attacks as there is always the ultimate RF jamming attack. Also DOS | DoS attacks, as there is always the ultimate RF jamming attack. | |||
may be attempted with spoofing/replay attacks, for which see | Also, DoS may be attempted with spoofing/replay attacks; for which, | |||
Section 8.4. | see Section 9.4. | |||
8.4. Spoofing & Replay Protection | 9.4. Spoofing & Replay Protection | |||
As noted in Section 5, spoofing is combatted by the intrinsic self- | As noted in Section 5, spoofing is combatted by the intrinsic self- | |||
attesting properties of HHITs plus their registration. Also as noted | attesting properties of HHITs, plus their registration. Also, as | |||
in Section 5, to combat replay attacks, a receiver MUST NOT trust | noted in Section 5, to combat replay attacks, a receiver MUST NOT | |||
that an observed UA is that identified in the Basic ID message (i.e. | trust any claims nominally received from an observed UA (not even the | |||
possesses the corresponding private key) until it receives a complete | Basic ID message purportedly identifying that UA) until the receiver | |||
chain of endorsement links from a root of trust to the UA's leaf DET, | verifies that the private key used to sign those claims is trusted, | |||
plus a signed message containing frequently changing, unpredictable | that the sender actually possesses that key, and that the sender | |||
but sanity-checkable data (e.g., a Location/Vector message) and | appears indeed to be that observed UA. This requires receiving a | |||
verifies all the foregoing. | complete chain of endorsement links from a root of trust to the UA's | |||
leaf DET, plus a message containing suitable nonce-like data signed | ||||
with the private key corresponding to that DET, and verifying all the | ||||
foregoing. The term "nonce-like" describes data that is readily | ||||
available to the prover and the verifier, changes frequently, is not | ||||
predictable by the prover, and can be checked quickly at low | ||||
computational cost by the verifier; a Location/Vector message is an | ||||
obvious choice. | ||||
8.5. Timestamps & Time Sources | 9.5. Timestamps & Time Sources | |||
Section 6 and more fundamentally Section 3.3 both require timestamps. | Section 6 and, more fundamentally, Section 3.3 both require | |||
In Broadcast RID messages, [F3411-22a] specifies both 32 bit Unix | timestamps. In Broadcast RID messages, [F3411-22a] specifies both | |||
style UTC timestamps (seconds since midnight going into the 1st day | 32-bit Unix-style UTC timestamps (seconds since midnight going into | |||
of 2019 rather than 1970) and 16 bit relative timestamps (tenths of | the 1st day of 2019, rather than 1970) and 16-bit relative timestamps | |||
seconds since the start of the most recent hour or other specified | (tenths of seconds since the start of the most recent hour or other | |||
event). [F3411-22a] requires that 16 bit timestamp accuracy, | specified event). [F3411-22a] requires that 16-bit timestamp | |||
relative to the time of applicability of the data being timestamped, | accuracy, relative to the time of applicability of the data being | |||
also be reported, with a worst allowable case of 1.5 seconds. | timestamped, also be reported, with a worst allowable case of 1.5 | |||
[F3411-22a] does not specify the time source, but GNSS is generally | seconds. [F3411-22a] does not specify the time source, but GNSS is | |||
assumed, as latitude, longitude and geodetic altitude must be | generally assumed, as latitude, longitude, and geodetic altitude must | |||
reported and most small UAS use GNSS for positioning and navigation. | be reported and most small UAS use GNSS for positioning and | |||
navigation. | ||||
Informative note: for example, to satisfy [FAA_RID], [F3586-22] | | Informative note: For example, to satisfy [FAA_RID], [F3586-22] | |||
specifies tamper protection of the entire RID subsystem and use of | | specifies tamper protection of the entire RID subsystem and use | |||
the US Government operated GPS. GPS has sub-microsecond accuracy | | of the GPS operated by the US Government. The GPS has sub- | |||
and 1.5 second precision. In this example, UA-sourced messages | | microsecond accuracy and 1.5-second precision. In this | |||
can be assumed to have timestamp accuracy and precision of 1.5 | | example, UA-sourced messages can be assumed to have timestamp | |||
seconds at worst. | | accuracy and precision of 1.5 seconds at worst. | |||
GCS often have access to cellular LTE or other time sources better | GCS often have access to cellular LTE or other time sources better | |||
than the foregoing, and such better time sources would be required to | than the foregoing, and such better time sources would be required to | |||
support multilateration in Section 6, but such better time sources | support multilateration in Section 6, but such better time sources | |||
cannot be assumed generally for purposes of security analysis. | cannot be assumed generally for purposes of security analysis. | |||
9. Privacy & Transparency Considerations | 10. Privacy & Transparency Considerations | |||
Broadcast RID messages can contain personal data (Section 3.2 of | Broadcast RID messages can contain personal data (Section 3.2 of | |||
[RFC6973]) such as the operator ID and in most jurisdictions must | [RFC6973]), such as the operator ID, and, in most jurisdictions, must | |||
contain the pilot/GCS location. The DRIP architectural approach for | contain the pilot/GCS location. The DRIP architectural approach for | |||
personal data protection is symmetric encryption of the personal data | personal data protection is symmetric encryption of the personal data | |||
using a session key known to the UAS and its USS, as follows. | using a session key known to the UAS and its USS, as follows. | |||
Authorized Observers obtain plaintext in either of two ways. An | Authorized Observers obtain plaintext in either of two ways: 1) an | |||
Observer can send the UAS ID and the cyphertext to a server that | Observer can send the UAS ID and the cyphertext to a server that | |||
offers decryption as a service. An Observer can send just the UAS ID | offers decryption as a service, and 2) an Observer can send just the | |||
to a server that returns the session key, so that Observer can | UAS ID to a server that returns the session key so that the Observer | |||
directly locally decrypt all cyphertext sent by that UA during that | can directly, locally decrypt all cyphertext sent by that UA during | |||
session (UAS operation). In either case, the server can be a Public | that session (UAS operation). In either case, the server can be a | |||
Safety USS, the Observer's own USS, or the UA's USS if the latter can | public safety USS, the Observer's own USS, or the UA's USS if the | |||
be determined (which under DRIP it can be, from the UAS ID itself). | latter can be determined (which, under DRIP, can be from the UAS ID | |||
Personal data is protected unless the UAS is otherwise configured: as | itself). Personal data is protected unless the UAS is otherwise | |||
part of DRIP-enhanced RID subsystem provisioning; as part of UTM | configured, i.e., as part of DRIP-enhanced RID subsystem | |||
operation authorization; or via subsequent authenticated | provisioning, as part of UTM operation authorization, or via | |||
communications from a cognizant authority. Personal data protection | subsequent authenticated communications from a cognizant authority. | |||
MUST NOT be used if the UAS loses connectivity to its USS, as if the | Personal data protection MUST NOT be used if the UAS loses | |||
UAS loses connectivity, Observers nearby likely also won't have | connectivity to its USS; if the UAS loses connectivity, Observers | |||
connectivity enabling decryption of the personal data. The UAS | nearby likely also won't have connectivity enabling decryption of the | |||
always has the option to abort the operation if personal data | personal data. The UAS always has the option to abort the operation | |||
protection is disallowed, but if this occurs during flight, the UA | if personal data protection is disallowed, but if this occurs during | |||
then MUST broadcast the personal data without protection until it | flight, the UA then MUST broadcast the personal data without | |||
lands and is powered off. Note that normative language was used only | protection until it lands and is powered off. Note that normative | |||
minimally in this section, as privacy protection requires refinement | language was used only minimally in this section, as privacy | |||
of the DRIP architecture and specification of interoperable protocol | protection requires refinement of the DRIP architecture and | |||
extensions, which are left for future DRIP documents. | specification of interoperable protocol extensions, which are left | |||
for future DRIP documents. | ||||
10. References | 11. References | |||
10.1. Normative References | 11.1. Normative References | |||
[F3411-22a] | [F3411-22a] | |||
ASTM International, "Standard Specification for Remote ID | ASTM International, "Standard Specification for Remote ID | |||
and Tracking", July 2022, | and Tracking", ASTM F3411-22A, DOI 10.1520/F3411-22A, July | |||
<https://www.astm.org/f3411-22a.html>. | 2022, <https://www.astm.org/f3411-22a.html>. | |||
[I-D.ietf-drip-rid] | ||||
Moskowitz, R., Card, S. W., Wiethuechter, A., and A. | ||||
Gurtov, "DRIP Entity Tag (DET) for Unmanned Aircraft | ||||
System Remote ID (UAS RID)", Work in Progress, Internet- | ||||
Draft, draft-ietf-drip-rid-37, 2 December 2022, | ||||
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-drip- | ||||
rid-37>. | ||||
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate | [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate | |||
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, | Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, | |||
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, | DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, | |||
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. | <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. | |||
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC | [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC | |||
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, | 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, | |||
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>. | May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>. | |||
[RFC9153] Card, S., Ed., Wiethuechter, A., Moskowitz, R., and A. | [RFC9153] Card, S., Ed., Wiethuechter, A., Moskowitz, R., and A. | |||
Gurtov, "Drone Remote Identification Protocol (DRIP) | Gurtov, "Drone Remote Identification Protocol (DRIP) | |||
Requirements and Terminology", RFC 9153, | Requirements and Terminology", RFC 9153, | |||
DOI 10.17487/RFC9153, February 2022, | DOI 10.17487/RFC9153, February 2022, | |||
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9153>. | <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9153>. | |||
10.2. Informative References | [RFC9374] Moskowitz, R., Card, S., Wiethuechter, A., and A. Gurtov, | |||
"DRIP Entity Tag (DET) for Unmanned Aircraft System Remote | ||||
ID (UAS RID)", RFC 9374, DOI 10.17487/RFC9374, March 2023, | ||||
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9374>. | ||||
11.2. Informative References | ||||
[CTA2063A] ANSI, "Small Unmanned Aerial Systems Serial Numbers", | [CTA2063A] ANSI, "Small Unmanned Aerial Systems Serial Numbers", | |||
2019. | ANSI/CTA 2063-A, September 2019. | |||
[Delegated] | [Delegated] | |||
European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), "EU | European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), "Commission | |||
Commission Delegated Regulation 2019/945 of 12 March 2019 | Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/945 of 12 March 2019 on | |||
on unmanned aircraft systems and on third-country | unmanned aircraft systems and on third-country operators | |||
operators of unmanned aircraft systems", 2019, | of unmanned aircraft systems", March 2019, | |||
<https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ | <https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg_del/2019/945/oj>. | |||
TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32019R0945>. | ||||
[DRIP-AUTH] | ||||
Wiethuechter, A., Ed., Card, S., and R. Moskowitz, "DRIP | ||||
Entity Tag Authentication Formats & Protocols for | ||||
Broadcast Remote ID", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, | ||||
draft-ietf-drip-auth-30, 28 March 2023, | ||||
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-drip- | ||||
auth-30>. | ||||
[DRIP-REGISTRIES] | ||||
Wiethuechter, A. and J. Reid, "DRIP Entity Tag (DET) | ||||
Identity Management Architecture", Work in Progress, | ||||
Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-drip-registries-12, 10 July | ||||
2023, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf- | ||||
drip-registries-12>. | ||||
[F3411-19] ASTM International, "Standard Specification for Remote ID | ||||
and Tracking", ASTM F3411-19, DOI 10.1520/F3411-19, May | ||||
2022, <https://www.astm.org/f3411-19.html>. | ||||
[F3586-22] ASTM International, "Standard Practice for Remote ID Means | [F3586-22] ASTM International, "Standard Practice for Remote ID Means | |||
of Compliance to Federal Aviation Administration | of Compliance to Federal Aviation Administration | |||
Regulation 14 CFR Part 89", July 2022, | Regulation 14 CFR Part 89", ASTM F3586-22, | |||
DOI 10.1520/F3586-22, July 2022, | ||||
<https://www.astm.org/f3586-22.html>. | <https://www.astm.org/f3586-22.html>. | |||
[FAA_RID] United States Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), | [FAA_RID] United States Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), | |||
"Remote Identification of Unmanned Aircraft", 2021, | "Remote Identification of Unmanned Aircraft", Federal | |||
Register, Vol. 86, No. 10, January 2021, | ||||
<https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-01-15/ | <https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-01-15/ | |||
pdf/2020-28948.pdf>. | pdf/2020-28948.pdf>. | |||
[FAA_UAS_Concept_Of_Ops] | [FAA_UAS_Concept_Of_Ops] | |||
United States Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), | United States Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), | |||
"Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) Traffic Management (UTM) | "Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) Traffic Management (UTM) | |||
Concept of Operations (V2.0)", 2020, | Concept of Operations", v2.0, March 2020, | |||
<https://www.faa.gov/uas/research_development/ | <https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/2022-08/ | |||
traffic_management/media/UTM_ConOps_v2.pdf>. | UTM_ConOps_v2.pdf>. | |||
[FS_AEUA] "Study of Further Architecture Enhancement for UAV and | [FS_AEUA] "Study of Further Architecture Enhancement for UAV and | |||
UAM", 2021, <https://www.3gpp.org/ftp/tsg_sa/WG2_Arch/ | UAM", S2-2107092, October 2021, | |||
<https://www.3gpp.org/ftp/tsg_sa/WG2_Arch/ | ||||
TSGS2_147E_Electronic_2021-10/Docs/S2-2107092.zip>. | TSGS2_147E_Electronic_2021-10/Docs/S2-2107092.zip>. | |||
[I-D.ietf-drip-auth] | ||||
Wiethuechter, A., Card, S. W., and R. Moskowitz, "DRIP | ||||
Entity Tag Authentication Formats & Protocols for | ||||
Broadcast Remote ID", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, | ||||
draft-ietf-drip-auth-29, 15 February 2023, | ||||
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-drip- | ||||
auth-29>. | ||||
[I-D.ietf-drip-registries] | ||||
Wiethuechter, A. and J. Reid, "DRIP Entity Tag (DET) | ||||
Identity Management Architecture", Work in Progress, | ||||
Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-drip-registries-07, 5 December | ||||
2022, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf- | ||||
drip-registries-07>. | ||||
[Implementing] | [Implementing] | |||
European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), "EU | European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), "Commission | |||
Commission Implementing Regulation 2019/947 of 24 May 2019 | Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/947 of 24 May 2019 on | |||
on the rules and procedures for the operation of unmanned | the rules and procedures for the operation of unmanned | |||
aircraft", 2019, <https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- | aircraft (Text with EEA relevance.)", May 2019, | |||
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32019R0947>. | <https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ | |||
TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32019R0947>. | ||||
[Implementing_update] | [Implementing_update] | |||
European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), "EU | European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), "Commission | |||
COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2021/664 of 22 | Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/664 of 22 April 2021 on | |||
April 2021 on a regulatory framework for the U-space", | a regulatory framework for the U-space (Text with EEA | |||
2021, <https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ | relevance)", April 2021, <https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- | |||
TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32021R0664>. | content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32021R0664>. | |||
[LAANC] United States Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), "Low | [LAANC] United States Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), "Low | |||
Altitude Authorization and Notification Capability", n.d., | Altitude Authorization and Notification Capability", | |||
<https://www.faa.gov/uas/programs_partnerships/ | <https://www.faa.gov/ | |||
data_exchange/>. | air_traffic/publications/atpubs/foa_html/ | |||
chap12_section_9.html>. | ||||
[MAVLink] "Micro Air Vehicle Communication Protocol", 2021, | [MAVLink] MAVLink, "Micro Air Vehicle Communication Protocol", | |||
<http://mavlink.io/>. | <http://mavlink.io/>. | |||
[MOC-NOA] United States Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), | [MOC-NOA] United States Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), | |||
"Accepted Means of Compliance; Remote Identification of | "Accepted Means of Compliance; Remote Identification of | |||
Unmanned Aircraft", August 2022, | Unmanned Aircraft", Document ID FAA-2022-0859-0001, August | |||
2022, | ||||
<https://www.regulations.gov/document/FAA-2022-0859-0001>. | <https://www.regulations.gov/document/FAA-2022-0859-0001>. | |||
[NPA] European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), "Notice of | [NPA] European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), "Notice of | |||
Proposed Amendment 2021-14 Development of acceptable means | Proposed Amendment 2021-14: Development of acceptable | |||
of compliance and guidance material to support the U-space | means of compliance and guidance material to support the | |||
regulation", 2021, | U-space regulation", December 2021, | |||
<https://www.easa.europa.eu/downloads/134303/en>. | <https://www.easa.europa.eu/downloads/134303/en>. | |||
[NPRM] United States Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), | [NPRM] United States Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), | |||
"Notice of Proposed Rule Making on Remote Identification | "Remote Identification of Unmanned Aircraft Systems", | |||
of Unmanned Aircraft Systems", 2019. | Notice of proposed rulemaking, December 2019, | |||
<https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/ | ||||
12/31/2019-28100/remote-identification-of-unmanned- | ||||
aircraft-systems>. | ||||
[RFC1034] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities", | [RFC1034] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities", | |||
STD 13, RFC 1034, DOI 10.17487/RFC1034, November 1987, | STD 13, RFC 1034, DOI 10.17487/RFC1034, November 1987, | |||
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1034>. | <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1034>. | |||
[RFC3261] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston, | [RFC3261] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston, | |||
A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E. | A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E. | |||
Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261, | Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261, | |||
DOI 10.17487/RFC3261, June 2002, | DOI 10.17487/RFC3261, June 2002, | |||
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3261>. | <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3261>. | |||
skipping to change at page 27, line 32 ¶ | skipping to change at line 1255 ¶ | |||
[RFC8005] Laganier, J., "Host Identity Protocol (HIP) Domain Name | [RFC8005] Laganier, J., "Host Identity Protocol (HIP) Domain Name | |||
System (DNS) Extension", RFC 8005, DOI 10.17487/RFC8005, | System (DNS) Extension", RFC 8005, DOI 10.17487/RFC8005, | |||
October 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8005>. | October 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8005>. | |||
[RFC8032] Josefsson, S. and I. Liusvaara, "Edwards-Curve Digital | [RFC8032] Josefsson, S. and I. Liusvaara, "Edwards-Curve Digital | |||
Signature Algorithm (EdDSA)", RFC 8032, | Signature Algorithm (EdDSA)", RFC 8032, | |||
DOI 10.17487/RFC8032, January 2017, | DOI 10.17487/RFC8032, January 2017, | |||
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8032>. | <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8032>. | |||
[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for | ||||
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, | ||||
RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017, | ||||
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>. | ||||
[RFC9082] Hollenbeck, S. and A. Newton, "Registration Data Access | [RFC9082] Hollenbeck, S. and A. Newton, "Registration Data Access | |||
Protocol (RDAP) Query Format", STD 95, RFC 9082, | Protocol (RDAP) Query Format", STD 95, RFC 9082, | |||
DOI 10.17487/RFC9082, June 2021, | DOI 10.17487/RFC9082, June 2021, | |||
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9082>. | <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9082>. | |||
[RFC9083] Hollenbeck, S. and A. Newton, "JSON Responses for the | [RFC9083] Hollenbeck, S. and A. Newton, "JSON Responses for the | |||
Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)", STD 95, | Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)", STD 95, | |||
RFC 9083, DOI 10.17487/RFC9083, June 2021, | RFC 9083, DOI 10.17487/RFC9083, June 2021, | |||
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9083>. | <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9083>. | |||
[RFC9224] Blanchet, M., "Finding the Authoritative Registration Data | [RFC9224] Blanchet, M., "Finding the Authoritative Registration Data | |||
Access Protocol (RDAP) Service", STD 95, RFC 9224, | Access Protocol (RDAP) Service", STD 95, RFC 9224, | |||
DOI 10.17487/RFC9224, March 2022, | DOI 10.17487/RFC9224, March 2022, | |||
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9224>. | <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9224>. | |||
[RFC9334] Birkholz, H., Thaler, D., Richardson, M., Smith, N., and | [RFC9334] Birkholz, H., Thaler, D., Richardson, M., Smith, N., and | |||
W. Pan, "Remote ATtestation procedureS (RATS) | W. Pan, "Remote ATtestation procedureS (RATS) | |||
Architecture", RFC 9334, DOI 10.17487/RFC9334, January | Architecture", RFC 9334, DOI 10.17487/RFC9334, January | |||
2023, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9334>. | 2023, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9334>. | |||
[TR-22.825] | ||||
3GPP, "Study on Remote Identification of Unmanned Aerial | ||||
Systems (UAS)", Release 16, 3GPP TR 22.825, September | ||||
2018, | ||||
<https://portal.3gpp.org/desktopmodules/Specifications/ | ||||
SpecificationDetails.aspx?specificationId=3527>. | ||||
[TR-23.755] | [TR-23.755] | |||
3GPP, "Study on application layer support for Unmanned | 3GPP, "Study on application layer support for Unmanned | |||
Aerial Systems (UAS) (Release 17)", 2019, | Aerial Systems (UAS)", Release 17, 3GPP TR 23.755, March | |||
2021, | ||||
<https://portal.3gpp.org/desktopmodules/Specifications/ | <https://portal.3gpp.org/desktopmodules/Specifications/ | |||
SpecificationDetails.aspx?specificationId=3588>. | SpecificationDetails.aspx?specificationId=3588>. | |||
[TS-22.825] | ||||
3GPP, "Study on Remote Identification of Unmanned Aerial | ||||
Systems (UAS)", 2018, | ||||
<https://portal.3gpp.org/desktopmodules/Specifications/ | ||||
SpecificationDetails.aspx?specificationId=3527>. | ||||
[TS-23.255] | [TS-23.255] | |||
3GPP, "Application layer support for Uncrewed Aerial | 3GPP, "Application layer support for Uncrewed Aerial | |||
System (UAS) Functional architecture and information | System (UAS); Functional architecture and information | |||
flows; (Release 17)", 2020, | flows", Release 17, 3GPP TS 23.255, June 2021, | |||
<https://portal.3gpp.org/desktopmodules/Specifications/ | <https://portal.3gpp.org/desktopmodules/Specifications/ | |||
SpecificationDetails.aspx?specificationId=3843>. | SpecificationDetails.aspx?specificationId=3843>. | |||
[U-Space] European Organization for the Safety of Air Navigation | [U-Space] European Organization for the Safety of Air Navigation | |||
(EUROCONTROL), "U-space Concept of Operations", 2019, | (EUROCONTROL), "U-space Concept of Operations", October | |||
2019, | ||||
<https://www.sesarju.eu/sites/default/files/documents/u- | <https://www.sesarju.eu/sites/default/files/documents/u- | |||
space/CORUS%20ConOps%20vol2.pdf>. | space/CORUS%20ConOps%20vol2.pdf>. | |||
Appendix A. Overview of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Traffic | Appendix A. Overview of UAS Traffic Management (UTM) | |||
Management (UTM) | ||||
A.1. Operation Concept | A.1. Operation Concept | |||
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and FAA's | The efforts of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration | |||
effort to integrate UAS operations into the national airspace system | (NASA) and FAA to integrate UAS operations into the national airspace | |||
(NAS) led to the development of the concept of UTM and the ecosystem | system (NAS) led to the development of the concept of UTM and the | |||
around it. The UTM concept was initially presented in 2013 and | ecosystem around it. The UTM concept was initially presented in | |||
version 2.0 was published in 2020 [FAA_UAS_Concept_Of_Ops]. | 2013, and version 2.0 was published in 2020 [FAA_UAS_Concept_Of_Ops]. | |||
The eventual concept refinement, initial prototype implementation, | The eventual concept refinement, initial prototype implementation, | |||
and testing were conducted by the joint FAA and NASA UTM research | and testing were conducted by the joint FAA and NASA UTM research | |||
transition team. World efforts took place afterward. The Single | transition team. World efforts took place afterward. The Single | |||
European Sky ATM Research (SESAR) started the CORUS project to | European Sky ATM Research (SESAR) started the Concept of Operation | |||
research its UTM counterpart concept, namely [U-Space]. This effort | for EuRopean UTM Systems (CORUS) project to research its UTM | |||
is led by the European Organization for the Safety of Air Navigation | counterpart concept, namely [U-Space]. This effort is led by the | |||
(Eurocontrol). | European Organization for the Safety of Air Navigation (EUROCONTROL). | |||
Both NASA and SESAR have published their UTM concepts of operations | Both NASA and SESAR have published their UTM concepts of operations | |||
to guide the development of their future air traffic management (ATM) | to guide the development of their future air traffic management (ATM) | |||
system and ensure safe and efficient integration of manned and | system and ensure safe and efficient integration of manned and | |||
unmanned aircraft into the national airspace. | unmanned aircraft into the national airspace. | |||
UTM comprises UAS operations infrastructure, procedures and local | UTM comprises UAS operations infrastructure, procedures, and local | |||
regulation compliance policies to guarantee safe UAS integration and | regulation compliance policies to guarantee safe UAS integration and | |||
operation. The main functionality of UTM includes, but is not | operation. The main functionality of UTM includes, but is not | |||
limited to, providing means of communication between UAS operators | limited to, providing means of communication between UAS operators | |||
and service providers and a platform to facilitate communication | and service providers and a platform to facilitate communication | |||
among UAS service providers. | among UAS service providers. | |||
A.2. UAS Service Supplier (USS) | A.2. UAS Service Supplier (USS) | |||
A USS plays an important role to fulfill the key performance | A USS plays an important role to fulfill the key performance | |||
indicators (KPIs) that UTM has to offer. Such an Entity acts as a | indicators (KPIs) that UTM has to offer. Such an entity acts as a | |||
proxy between UAS operators and UTM service providers. It provides | proxy between UAS operators and UTM service providers. It provides | |||
services like real-time UAS traffic monitoring and planning, | services like real-time UAS traffic monitoring and planning, | |||
aeronautical data archiving, airspace and violation control, | aeronautical data archiving, airspace and violation control, | |||
interacting with other third-party control entities, etc. A USS can | interacting with other third-party control entities, etc. A USS can | |||
coexist with other USS to build a large service coverage map that can | coexist with other USS to build a large service coverage map that can | |||
load-balance, relay, and share UAS traffic information. | load-balance, relay, and share UAS traffic information. | |||
The FAA works with UAS industry shareholders and promotes the Low | The FAA works with UAS industry shareholders and promotes the Low | |||
Altitude Authorization and Notification Capability [LAANC] program, | Altitude Authorization and Notification Capability [LAANC] program, | |||
which is the first system to realize some of the envisioned | which is the first system to realize some of the envisioned | |||
functionality of UTM. The LAANC program can automate UAS operational | functionality of UTM. The LAANC program can automate UAS operational | |||
intent (flight plan) submission and application for airspace | intent (flight plan) submissions and applications for airspace | |||
authorization in real-time by checking against multiple aeronautical | authorization in real time by checking against multiple aeronautical | |||
databases such as airspace classification and operating rules | databases, such as airspace classification and operating rules | |||
associated with it, FAA UAS facility map, special use airspace, | associated with it, the FAA UAS facility map, special use airspace, | |||
Notice to Airmen (NOTAM), and Temporary Flight Restriction (TFR). | Notice to Airmen (NOTAM), and Temporary Flight Restriction (TFR). | |||
A.3. UTM Use Cases for UAS Operations | A.3. UTM Use Cases for UAS Operations | |||
This section illustrates a couple of use case scenarios where UAS | This section illustrates a couple of use case scenarios where UAS | |||
participation in UTM has significant safety improvement. | participation in UTM has significant safety improvement. | |||
1. For a UAS participating in UTM and taking off or landing in | 1. For a UAS participating in UTM and taking off or landing in | |||
controlled airspace (e.g., Class Bravo, Charlie, Delta, and Echo | controlled airspace (e.g., Class Bravo, Charlie, Delta, and Echo | |||
in the United States), the USS under which the UAS is operating | in the United States), the USS under which the UAS is operating | |||
is responsible for verifying UA registration, authenticating the | is responsible for verifying UA registration, authenticating the | |||
UAS operational intent (flight plan) by checking against a | UAS operational intent (flight plan) by checking against a | |||
designated UAS facility map database, obtaining the air traffic | designated UAS facility map database, obtaining the air traffic | |||
control (ATC) authorization, and monitoring the UAS flight path | control (ATC) authorization, and monitoring the UAS flight path | |||
in order to maintain safe margins and follow the pre-authorized | in order to maintain safe margins and follow the pre-authorized | |||
sequence of authorized 4-D volumes (route). | sequence of authorized 4-D volumes (route). | |||
2. For a UAS participating in UTM and taking off or landing in | 2. For a UAS participating in UTM and taking off or landing in | |||
uncontrolled airspace (e.g., Class Golf in the United States), | uncontrolled airspace (e.g., Class Golf in the United States), | |||
pre-flight authorization must be obtained from a USS when | preflight authorization must be obtained from a USS when | |||
operating Beyond Visual Line Of Sight (BVLOS). The USS either | operating BVLOS. The USS either accepts or rejects the received | |||
accepts or rejects the received operational intent (flight plan) | operational intent (flight plan) from the UAS. An accepted UAS | |||
from the UAS. An accepted UAS operation may, and in some cases | operation may, and in some cases must, share its current flight | |||
must, share its current flight data, such as GPS position and | data, such as GPS position and altitude, to the USS. The USS may | |||
altitude, to the USS. The USS may maintain (and provide to | maintain (and provide to authorized requestors) the UAS operation | |||
authorized requestors) the UAS operation status near real-time in | status near real time in the short term and may retain at least | |||
the short term, and may retain at least some of it in the longer | some of it in the longer term, e.g., for overall airspace air | |||
term, e.g., for overall airspace air traffic monitoring. | traffic monitoring. | |||
Appendix B. Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast (ADS-B) | Appendix B. Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast (ADS-B) | |||
The ADS-B is the de jure technology used in manned aviation for | ADS-B is the de jure technology used in manned aviation for sharing | |||
sharing location information, from the aircraft to ground and | location information, from the aircraft to ground and satellite-based | |||
satellite-based systems, designed in the early 2000s. Broadcast RID | systems, designed in the early 2000s. Broadcast RID is conceptually | |||
is conceptually similar to ADS-B, but with the receiver target being | similar to ADS-B but with the receiver target being the general | |||
the general public on generally available devices (e.g., | public on generally available devices (e.g., smartphones). | |||
smartphones). | ||||
For numerous technical reasons, ADS-B itself is not suitable for low- | For numerous technical reasons, ADS-B itself is not suitable for low- | |||
flying small UAS. Technical reasons include but are not limited to | flying, small UAS. Technical reasons include, but are not limited | |||
the following: | to, the following: | |||
1. Lack of support for the 1090 MHz ADS-B channel on any consumer | 1. lack of support for the 1090-MHz ADS-B channel on any consumer | |||
handheld devices | handheld devices | |||
2. Cost, Size, Weight and Power (CSWaP) requirements of ADS-B | 2. Cost, Size, Weight, and Power (CSWaP) requirements of ADS-B | |||
transponders on CSWaP constrained UA | transponders on CSWaP-constrained UA | |||
3. Limited bandwidth of both uplink and downlink, which would likely | 3. limited bandwidth of both uplink and downlink, which would likely | |||
be saturated by large numbers of UAS, endangering manned aviation | be saturated by large numbers of UAS, endangering manned aviation | |||
Understanding these technical shortcomings, regulators worldwide have | Understanding these technical shortcomings, regulators worldwide have | |||
ruled out the use of ADS-B for the small UAS for which UAS RID and | ruled out the use of ADS-B for the small UAS for which UAS RID and | |||
DRIP are intended. | DRIP are intended. | |||
Acknowledgments | Acknowledgments | |||
The work of the FAA's UAS Identification and Tracking (UAS ID) | The work of the FAA's UAS Identification and Tracking (UAS ID) | |||
Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) is the foundation of later ASTM | Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) is the foundation of later ASTM | |||
and IETF DRIP WG efforts. The work of ASTM F38.02 in balancing the | and IETF DRIP WG efforts. The work of ASTM F38.02 in balancing the | |||
interests of diverse stakeholders is essential to the necessary rapid | interests of diverse stakeholders is essential to the necessary rapid | |||
and widespread deployment of UAS RID. Thanks to Alexandre Petrescu, | and widespread deployment of UAS RID. Thanks to Alexandre Petrescu, | |||
Stephan Wenger, Kyle Rose, Roni Even, Thomas Fossati, Valery Smyslov, | Stephan Wenger, Kyle Rose, Roni Even, Thomas Fossati, Valery Smyslov, | |||
Erik Kline, John Scudder, Murray Kucheraway, Robert Wilton, Roman | Erik Kline, John Scudder, Murray Kucheraway, Robert Wilton, Roman | |||
Daniliw, Warren Kumari, Zaheduzzaman Sarker and Dave Thaler for the | Daniliw, Warren Kumari, Zaheduzzaman Sarker, and Dave Thaler for the | |||
reviews and helpful positive comments. Thanks to Laura Welch for her | reviews and helpful positive comments. Thanks to Laura Welch for her | |||
assistance greatly improving this document. Thanks to Dave Thaler | assistance in greatly improving this document. Thanks to Dave Thaler | |||
for showing our authors how to leverage the RATS model for | for showing our authors how to leverage the RATS model for | |||
attestation in DRIP. Thanks to chairs Daniel Migault and Mohamed | attestation in DRIP. Thanks to chairs Daniel Migault and Mohamed | |||
Boucadair for direction of our team of authors and editor, some of | Boucadair for direction of our team of authors and editors, some of | |||
whom are relative newcomers to writing IETF documents. Thanks | whom are relative newcomers to writing IETF documents. Thanks | |||
especially to Internet Area Director Eric Vyncke for guidance and | especially to Internet Area Director Éric Vyncke for guidance and | |||
support. | support. | |||
Authors' Addresses | Authors' Addresses | |||
Stuart W. Card | Stuart W. Card | |||
AX Enterprize | AX Enterprize | |||
4947 Commercial Drive | 4947 Commercial Drive | |||
Yorkville, NY, 13495 | Yorkville, NY 13495 | |||
United States of America | United States of America | |||
Email: stu.card@axenterprize.com | Email: stu.card@axenterprize.com | |||
Adam Wiethuechter | Adam Wiethuechter | |||
AX Enterprize | AX Enterprize | |||
4947 Commercial Drive | 4947 Commercial Drive | |||
Yorkville, NY, 13495 | Yorkville, NY 13495 | |||
United States of America | United States of America | |||
Email: adam.wiethuechter@axenterprize.com | Email: adam.wiethuechter@axenterprize.com | |||
Robert Moskowitz | Robert Moskowitz | |||
HTT Consulting | HTT Consulting | |||
Oak Park, MI, 48237 | Oak Park, MI 48237 | |||
United States of America | United States of America | |||
Email: rgm@labs.htt-consult.com | Email: rgm@labs.htt-consult.com | |||
Shuai Zhao | Shuai Zhao (editor) | |||
Intel | Intel | |||
2200 Mission College Blvd | 2200 Mission College Blvd. | |||
Santa Clara, 95054 | Santa Clara, 95054 | |||
United States of America | United States of America | |||
Email: shuai.zhao@ieee.org | Email: shuai.zhao@ieee.org | |||
Andrei Gurtov | Andrei Gurtov | |||
Linköping University | Linköping University | |||
IDA | IDA | |||
SE-58183 Linköping Linköping | SE-58183 Linköping | |||
Sweden | Sweden | |||
Email: gurtov@acm.org | Email: gurtov@acm.org | |||
End of changes. 199 change blocks. | ||||
589 lines changed or deleted | 629 lines changed or added | |||
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. |