<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629-xhtml.ent">
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="rfc2629.xslt" ?>
<?rfc toc="yes" ?>
<?rfc symrefs="yes" ?>
<?rfc sortrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc compact="yes" ?>
<?rfc subcompact="no" ?>
<?rfc iprnotified="no" ?>
<?rfc strict="no" ?>
<rfc xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude"
	docName="draft-ietf-drip-reqs-02" category="info" 
	ipr="trust200902" obsoletes="" updates="" submissionType="IETF" 
	xml:lang="en" tocInclude="true" symRefs="true" sortRefs="true" 
	version="3">
  <!-- xml2rfc v2v3 conversion 2.37.1 -->
<front>
	<title abbrev="DRIP Reqs">Drone Remote Identification Protocol 
	(DRIP) Requirements</title>
	<seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft" value="draft-ietf-drip-reqs-02"/>
	<author fullname="Stuart W. Card" 
	initials="S." surname="Card" role="editor">
	<organization>AX Enterprize</organization>
	<address>
	  <postal>
		<street>4947 Commercial Drive</street>
		<city>Yorkville</city>
		<region>NY</region>
		<code>13495</code>
		<country>USA</country>
	  </postal>
	  <email>stu.card@axenterprize.com</email>
	</address>
	</author>
	<author fullname="Adam Wiethuechter" 
	initials="A." surname="Wiethuechter">
	<organization>AX Enterprize</organization>
	<address>
	  <postal>
		<street>4947 Commercial Drive</street>
		<city>Yorkville</city>
		<region>NY</region>
		<code>13495</code>
		<country>USA</country>
	  </postal>
	  <email>adam.wiethuechter@axenterprize.com</email>
	</address>
	</author>
	<author fullname="Robert Moskowitz" 
	initials="R" surname="Moskowitz">
	<organization>HTT Consulting</organization>
	<address>
	  <postal>
		<street/>
		<city>Oak Park</city>
		<region>MI</region>
		<code>48237</code>
		<country>USA</country>
	  </postal>
	  <email>rgm@labs.htt-consult.com</email>
	</address>
	</author>
	<author fullname="Andrei Gurtov" initials="A." surname="Gurtov">
	<organization>Linköping University</organization>
	<address>
	  <postal>
		<street>IDA</street>
        <city>Linköping</city>
        <code>58183</code>
        <country>Sweden</country>
      </postal>
      <email>gurtov@acm.org</email>
    </address>
    </author>
    <date year="2020"/>
    <area>Internet</area>
    <workgroup>DRIP</workgroup>
    <keyword>RFC</keyword>
    <keyword>Request for Comments</keyword>
    <keyword>I-D</keyword>
    <keyword>Internet-Draft</keyword>
    <keyword>DRIP</keyword>
<abstract>
<t>
	This document defines the requirements for Drone Remote 
	Identification Protocol (DRIP) Working Group protocols to support 
	Unmanned Aircraft System Remote Identification and tracking (UAS 
	RID) for security, safety and other purposes. Complementing 
	external technical standards as regulator-accepted means of 
	compliance with UAS RID regulations, DRIP will:
</t>
	<ul spacing="normal" empty="true">
	<li>
		facilitate use of existing Internet resources to support UAS 
		RID and to enable enhanced related services;
	</li>
	<li>
		enable online and offline verification that UAS RID
		information is trustworthy.
	</li>
	</ul>
</abstract>
</front>
<middle>
<section numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>Introduction (Informative)</name>
<section numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>Overall Context</name> <t>
	Many considerations (especially safety and security) dictate that 
	UAS be remotely identifiable. Any Observer with responsibilities 
	involving aircraft inherently must classify Unmanned Aircraft (UA) 
	situationally according to basic considerations, as illustrated 
	notionally in <xref target="Classification" format="default"/> 
	below. An Observer who classifies an UAS: as Taskable, can ask it 
	to do something useful; as Low Concern, can reasonably assume it is 
	not malicious, and would cooperate with requests to modify its 
	flight plans for safety reasons; as High Concern or Unidentified, 
	is worth focused surveillance.
</t>
<figure anchor="Classification">
<name>"Notional UAS Classification"></name>
<artwork type="ascii-art">

                     xxxxxxx        +--------------+
                    x       x  No   |              |
                   x   ID?   x+---->| UNIDENTIFIED |
                    x       x       |              |
                     xxxxxxx        +--------------+
                        +
                        | Yes
                        v
                     xxxxxxx
                    x       x
        +---------+x  TYPE?  x+----------+
        |           x       x            |
        |            xxxxxxx             |
        |               +                |
        v               v                v
+--------------+ +--------------+ +--------------+
|              | |              | |              |
|  TASKABLE    | | LOW CONCERN  | | HIGH CONCERN |
|              | |              | |              |
+--------------+ +--------------+ +--------------+

</artwork>
</figure>
<t>
	Civil Aviation Authorities (CAAs) worldwide are mandating Unmanned 
	Aircraft System Remote Identification and tracking (UAS RID). The 
	European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) has published <xref 
	target="Delegated" format="default"/> and <xref 
	target="Implementing" format="default"/> Regulations. The United 
	States (US) Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has published a 
	Notice of Proposed Rule Making <xref target="NPRM" 
	format="default"/> and has described the key role that UAS RID 
	plays in UAS Traffic Management (UTM <xref target="CONOPS" 
	format="default"/> especially Section 2.6). CAAs currently (2020) 
	promulgate performance-based regulations that do not specify 
	techniques, but rather cite industry consensus technical standards 
	as acceptable means of compliance.
</t>	
<t>  
	ASTM International, Technical Committee F38 (UAS), Subcommittee 
	F38.02 (Aircraft Operations), Work Item WK65041, developed ASTM 
	F3411-19 <xref target="F3411-19" format="default"/> Standard 
	Specification for Remote ID and Tracking. It defines two means of 
	UAS RID:
</t>
	<ul spacing="normal" empty="true">
	<li>
		Network RID defines a set of information for UAS to make 
		available globally indirectly via the Internet, through servers 
		that can be queried by Observers.
	</li>
	<li>
		Broadcast RID defines a set of messages for Unmanned Aircraft
		(UA) to transmit locally directly one-way over Bluetooth or
		Wi-Fi, to be received in real time by local Observers.
	</li>
	</ul>
<t>
	The same information must be provided via both means. The 
	presentation may differ, as Network RID defines a data dictionary, 
	whereas Broadcast RID defines message formats (which carry items 
	from that same data dictionary). The frequency with which it is 
	sent may differ, as Network RID can accomodate Observer queries 
	asynchronous to UAS updates (which generally need be send only when 
	information, such as position, changes), whereas Broadcast RID 
	depends upon Observers receiving UA messages at the time they are 
	transmitted. Network RID depends upon Internet connectivity in 
	several segments from the UAS to each Observer. Broadcast RID 
	should need Internet (or other Wide Area Network) connectivity only 
	for UAS registry information lookup using the directly locally 
	received UAS Identifier (UAS ID) as a key.
</t>
<t anchor="IDtypes">
	<xref target="F3411-19" format="default"/> specifies three UAS ID
	types:
</t>
	<ol spacing="normal" type="TYPE-%d" group="type">
	<li>
		A static, manufacturer assigned, hardware serial number per 
		ANSI/CTA-2063-A "Small Unmanned Aerial System Serial Numbers" 
		<xref target="CTA2063A" format="default"/>.
	</li>
	<li>
		A CAA assigned (presumably static) ID.
	</li>
	<li>
		A UTM system assigned UUID <xref target="RFC4122" 
		format="default"/>, which can but need not be dynamic.
	</li>
	</ol>
<t>
	The EU allows only Type 1; the US allows Types 1 and 3, but 
	requires Type 3 IDs (if used) each to be used only once (for a 
	single UAS flight, which in the context of UTM is called an 
	"operation"). <xref target="F3411-19" format="default"/> Broadcast 
	RID transmits all information as cleartext (ASCII or binary), so 
	static IDs enable trivial correlation of patterns of use, 
	unacceptable in many applications, e.g., package delivery routes of 
	competitors.
</t>
<t>
	<xref target="WG105" format="default"/> addreses a "different scope 
	than Direct Remote Identification... latter being primarily meant 
	for security purposes... rather than for safety purposes (e.g. 
	hazards deconfliction..." Aviation community standards set a higher 
	bar for safety than for security. It "leaves the opportunity for 
	those manufacturers who would prefer to merge both functions to do 
	so... The purpose of the e-Identification function is to transmit, 
	towards the U-space infrastructure and/or other UA, a set of 
	information for safety (traffic management) purposes..." In 
	addition to RID's Broadcast and Network one-way to Observers), it 
	will use V2V to other UA (also perhaps to and/or from some manned 
	aircraft).
</t>
</section>
<section numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>Intended Use</name>
<t>
	An ID is not an end in itself; it exists to enable lookups and 
	provision of services complementing mere identification.
</t>
<t>
	Minimal specified information must be made available to the public; 
	access to other data, e.g., UAS operator Personally Identifiable 
	Information (PII), must be limited to strongly authenticated 
	personnel, properly authorized per policy. The balance between 
	privacy and transparency remains a subject for public debate and 
	regulatory action; DRIP can only offer tools to expand the 
	achievable trade space and enable trade-offs within that space. 
	<xref target="F3411-19" format="default"/> specifies only how to 
	get the UAS ID to the Observer; how the Observer can perform these 
	lookups, and how the registries first can be populated with 
	information, is unspecified.
</t>
<t>
	Using UAS RID to facilitate vehicular (V2X) communications and 
	applications such as Detect And Avoid (DAA, which would impose 
	tighter latency bounds than RID itself) is an obvious possibility, 
	explicitly contemplated in the FAA NPRM. However, applications of 
	RID beyond RID itself have been omitted from <xref 
	target="F3411-19" format="default"/>; DAA has been explicitly 
	declared out of scope in ASTM working group discussions, based on a 
	distinction between RID as a security standard vs DAA as a safety 
	application. Although dynamic establishment of secure 
	communications between the Observer and the UAS pilot seems to have 
	been contemplated by the FAA UAS ID and Tracking Aviation 
	Rulemaking Committee (ARC) in their <xref target="Recommendations" 
	format="default"/>, it is not addressed in any of the subsequent 
	proposed regulations or technical specifications.
</t>
<t>
	The need for near-universal deployment of UAS RID is pressing. This 
	implies the need to support use by Observers of already ubiquitous 
	mobile devices (typically smartphones and tablets). Anticipating 
	likely CAA requirements to support legacy devices, especially in 
	light of <xref target="Recommendations" format="default"/>, <xref 
	target="F3411-19" format="default"/> specifies that any UAS sending 
	Broadcast RID over Bluetooth must do so over Bluetooth 4, 
	regardless of whether it also does so over newer versions; as UAS 
	sender devices and Observer receiver devices are unpaired, this 
	implies extremely short "advertisement" (beacon) frames.
</t>
<t>
	UA onboard RID devices are severely constrained in Cost, Size, 
	Weight and Power ($SWaP). Cost is a significant impediment to the 
	necessary near-universal adoption of UAS send and Observer receive 
	RID capabilities. $SWaP is a burden not only on the designers of 
	new UA for production and sale, but also on owners of existing UA 
	that must be retrofit. Radio Controlled (RC) aircraft modelers, 
	"hams" who use licensed amateur radio frequencies to control UAS, 
	drone hobbyists and others who custom build UAS all need means of
	participating in UAS RID sensitive to both generic $SWaP and
	application-specific considerations.
</t>
<t>	
	To accommodate the most severely constrained cases, all these 
	conspire to motivate system design decisions, especially for the 
	Broadcast RID data link, which complicate the protocol design 
	problem: one-way links; extremely short packets; and 
	Internet-disconnected operation of UA onboard devices. 
	Internet-disconnected operation of Observer devices has been deemed 
	by ASTM F38.02 too infrequent to address, but for some users is 
	important and presents further challenges.
</t>
<t>
	Despite work by regulators and Standards Development Organizations 
	(SDOs), there are substantial gaps in UAS standards generally and 
	UAS RID specifically. <xref target="Roadmap" format="default"/> 
	catalogs UAS related standards, ongoing standardization activities 
	and gaps (as of early 2020); Section 7.8 catalogs those related 
	specifically to UAS RID.
</t>
<t>
	Given not only packet payload length and bandwidth, but also 
	processing and storage within the $SWaP constraints of very small 
	(e.g. consumer toy) UA, heavyweight cryptographic security 
	protocols are infeasible, yet trustworthiness of UAS RID 
	information is essential. Under <xref target="F3411-19" 
	format="default"/>, even the most basic datum, the UAS ID string 
	(typically number) itself can be merely an unsubstantiated claim. 
	Observer devices being ubiquitous, thus popular targets for malware 
	or other compromise, cannot be generally trusted (although the user 
	of each device is compelled to trust that device, to some extent); 
	a "fair witness" functionality (inspired by <xref target="Stranger" 
	format="default"/>) is desirable.
</t>
</section>
<section numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>DRIP Scope</name>
<t>
	DRIP’s initial goal is to make RID immediately actionable, in both 
	Internet and local-only connected scenarios (especially 
	emergencies), in severely constrained UAS environments, balancing 
	legitimate (e.g., public safety) authorities’ Need To Know 
	trustworthy information with UAS operators’ privacy. By 
	"immediately actionable" is meant information of sufficient 
	precision, accuracy, timeliness, etc. for an Observer to use it as 
	the basis for immediate decisive action, whether that be to trigger 
	a defensive counter-UAS system, to attempt to initiate 
	communications with the UAS operator, to accept the presence of the 
	UAS in the airspace where/when observed as not requiring further 
	action, or whatever, with potentially severe consequences of any 
	action or inaction chosen based on that information. Potential 
	follow-on goals may extend beyond providing timely and trustworthy 
	identification data, to using it to enable identity-oriented 
	networking of UAS.
</t>
<t>	
	DRIP (originally Trustworthy Multipurpose Remote Identification, 
	TM-RID) potentially could be applied to verifiably identify other 
	types of registered things reported to be in specified physical 
	locations, but the urgent motivation and clear initial focus is 
	UAS. Existing Internet resources (protocol standards, services, 
	infrastructure, and business models) should be leveraged. A natural 
	Internet based architecture for UAS RID conforming to proposed 
	regulations and external technical standards is described in a 
	companion architecture document <xref target="I-D.ietf-drip-arch" 
	format="default"/> and elaborated in other DRIP documents; this 
	document describes only relevant requirements and defines 
	terminology for the set of DRIP documents.
</t>
</section>
</section>
<section anchor="terms" numbered="true" toc="default"> 
<name>Terms and Definitions</name> <section numbered="true" 
toc="default"> <name>Requirements Terminology</name> <t>
	The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 
	"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", 
	and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described 
	in BCP 14 <xref target="RFC2119" format="default"/> <xref 
	target="RFC8174" format="default"/> when, and only when, they 
	appear in all capitals, as shown here.
</t>
</section>
<section numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>Definitions</name>
<t>
	This section defines a set of terms expected to be used in DRIP 
	documents. This list is meant to be the DRIP terminology reference. 
	Some of the terms listed below are not used in this document. <xref 
	target="RFC4949" format="default"/> provides a glossary of Internet 
	security terms that should be used where applicable. In the UAS 
	community, the plural form of acronyms generally is the same as the 
	singular form, e.g. Unmanned Aircraft System (singular) and 
	Unmanned Aircraft Systems (plural) are both represented as UAS. On 
	this and other terminological issues, to encourage comprehension 
	necessary for adoption of DRIP by the intended user community, that 
	community's norms are respected herein, and definitions are quoted 
	in cases where they have been found in that community's documents.
</t>
	<dl newline="true" spacing="normal">
		<dt>$SWaP</dt>
		<dd>
			Cost, Size, Weight and Power.
		</dd>
		<dt>AAA</dt>
		<dd>
			Attestation, Authentication, Authorization, Access Control, 
			Accounting, Attribution, Audit, or any subset thereof (uses 
			differ by application, author and context).
		</dd>
		<dt>ABDAA</dt>
		<dd>
			AirBorne DAA. Accomplished using systems onboard the 
			aircraft involved. Also known as "self-separation".
		</dd>
		<dt>ADS-B</dt>
		<dd>
			Automatic Dependent Surveillance - Broadcast. "ADS-B Out" 
			equipment obtains aircraft position from other on-board 
			systems (typically GNSS) and periodically broadcasts it to 
			"ADS-B In" equipped entities, including other aircraft, 
			ground stations and satellite based monitoring systems.
		</dd>
		<dt>AGL</dt>
		<dd>
			Above Ground Level. Relative altitude, above the variously 
			defined local ground level, typically of an UA, measured in 
			feet or meters.
		</dd>
		<dt>ATC</dt>
		<dd>
			Air Traffic Control. Explicit flight direction to pilots 
			from ground controllers. Contrast with ATM.
		</dd>
		<dt>ATM</dt>
		<dd>
			Air Traffic Management. A broader functional and geographic 
			scope and/or a higher layer of abstraction than ATC. "The 
			dynamic, integrated management of air traffic and airspace 
			including air traffic services, airspace management and air 
			traffic flow management - safely, economically and 
			efficiently - through the provision of facilities and 
			seamless services in collaboration with all parties and 
			involving airborne and ground-based functions." <xref 
			target="ICAOATM" format="default"/>
		</dd>
		<dt>Authentication Message</dt>
		<dd>
			F3411 Message Type 2. Provides framing for authentication 
			data, only.
		</dd>
		<dt>Basic ID Message</dt>
		<dd>
			F3411 Message Type 0. Provides UA Type, UAS ID Type and 
			UAS ID, only.
		</dd>
		<dt>BLOS</dt>
		<dd>
			Beyond Line Of Sight (LOS). Term to be avoided due to
			ambiguity. See LOS.
		</dd>
		<dt>BVLOS</dt>
		<dd>
			Beyond Visual Line Of Sight (V-LOS). See V-LOS.
		</dd>
		<dt>CAA</dt>
		<dd>
			Civil Aviation Authority. Two examples are the United 
			States Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the 
			European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA).
		</dd>
		<dt>C2</dt>
		<dd>
			Command and Control. A set of organizational and technical 
			attributes and processes that employs human, physical, and 
			information resources to solve problems and accomplish 
			missions. Previously primarily used in military contexts. 
			In the UAS context, typically refers to the link between 
			GCS and UA over which the former controls the latter.
		</dd>
		<dt>DAA</dt>
		<dd>
			Detect And Avoid, formerly Sense And Avoid (SAA). A means 
			of keeping aircraft "well clear" of each other for safety. 
		</dd>
		<dt>Direct RID</dt>
		<dd>
			Direct Remote Identification. Per <xref target="Delegated" 
			format="default"/>, "a system that ensures the local 
			broadcast of information about a UA in operation, including 
			the marking of the UA, so that this information can be 
			obtained without physical access to the UA". Requirement 
			could be met with ASTM Broadcast RID: Basic ID message with 
			UAS ID Type 1; Location/Vector message; Operator ID 
			message; System Message. Corresponds roughly to the 
			Broadcast RID portion of FAA NPRM Standard RID.
		</dd>
		<dt>E2E</dt>
		<dd>
			End to End. 
		</dd>
		<dt>EUROCAE</dt>
		<dd>
			European Organisation for Civil Aviation Equipment. 
			Aviation SDO, originally European, now with broader 
			membership. Cooperates extensively with RTCA.
		</dd>
		<dt>GBDAA</dt>
		<dd>
			Ground Based DAA. Accomplished with the aid of ground based 
			functions.
		</dd>
		<dt>GCS</dt>
		<dd>
			Ground Control Station. The part of the UAS that the remote 
			pilot uses to exercise C2 over the UA, whether by remotely 
			exercising UA flight controls to fly the UA, by setting GPS 
			waypoints, or otherwise directing its flight.
		</dd>
		<dt>GNSS</dt>
		<dd>
			Global Navigation Satellite System. Satellite based timing 
			and/or positioning with global coverage, often used to 
			support navigation.
		</dd>
		<dt>GPS</dt>
		<dd>
			Global Positioning System. A specific GNSS, but in this 
			context, the term is typically misused in place of the more 
			generic term GNSS.
		</dd>
		<dt>GRAIN</dt>
		<dd>
			Global Resilient Aviation Interoperable Network. Putative 
			ICAO managed IPv6 overlay internetwork per IATF.
		</dd>
		<dt>IATF</dt>
		<dd>
			International Aviation Trust Framework. ICAO effort to 
			develop a resilient and secure by design framework for 
			networking in support of all aspects of aviation.
		</dd>
		<dt>ICAO</dt>
		<dd>
			International Civil Aviation Organization. A United Nations 
			specialized agency that develops and harmonizes 
			international standards relating to aviation.
		</dd>
		<dt>LAANC</dt>
		<dd>
			Low Altitude Authorization and Notification Capability. 
			Supports ATC authorization requirements for UAS operations: 
			remote pilots can apply to receive a near real-time 
			authorization for operations under 400 feet in controlled 
			airspace near airports. US partial stopgap until UTM comes.
		</dd>
		<dt>Limited RID</dt>
		<dd>
			Per the FAA NPRM, a mode of operation that must use Network 
			RID, must not use Broadcast RID, and must provide pilot/GCS 
			location only (not UA location). This mode is only allowed 
			for UA that neither require (due to e.g. size) nor are 
			equipped for Standard RID, operated within V-LOS and within 
			400 feet of the pilot, below 400 feet AGL, etc.
		</dd>
		<dt>Location/Vector Message</dt>
		<dd>
			F3411 Message Type 1. Provides UA location, altitude, 
			heading and speed, only.
		</dd>
		<dt>LOS</dt>
		<dd>
			Line Of Sight. An adjectival phrase describing any 
			information transfer that travels in a nearly straight line 
			(e.g. electromagnetic energy, whether in the visual light, 
			RF or other frequency range) and is subject to blockage. A 
			term to be avoided due to ambiguity, in this context, 
			between RF-LOS and V-LOS.
		</dd>
		<dt>MSL</dt>
		<dd>
			Mean Sea Level. Relative altitude, above the variously 
			defined mean sea level, typically of an UA (but in FAA NPRM 
			also for a GCS), measured in or meters.
		</dd>
		<dt>Net-RID DP</dt>
		<dd>
			Network RID Display Provider. Logical entity that 
			aggregates data from Net-RID SPs as needed in response to 
			user queries regarding UAS operating within specified 
			airspace volumes, to enable display by a user application 
			on a user device. Potentially could provide not only 
			information sent via UAS RID but also information retrieved 
			from UAS RID registries, or information beyond UAS RID, 
			regarding subscribed USS. Under the FAA NPRM, not 
			recognized as a distinct entity, but a service provided by 
			USS, including Public Safety USS that may exist primarily 
			for this purpose rather than to manage any subscribed UAS. 
		</dd>
		<dt>Net-RID SP</dt>
		<dd>
			Network RID Service Provider. Logical entity that collects 
			RID messages from UAS and responds to NetRID-DP queries for 
			information on UAS of which it is aware. Under the FAA 
			NPRM, the USS to which the UAS is subscribed ("Remote ID 
			USS").
		</dd>
		<dt>Network Identification Service</dt>
		<dd>
			EU regulatory requirement for Network RID. Requirement 
			could be met with ASTM Network RID: Basic ID message with 
			UAS ID Type 1; Location/Vector message; Operator ID 
			message; System Message. Corresponds roughly to the 
			Network RID portion of FAA NPRM Standard RID.
		</dd>		
		<dt>Observer</dt>
		<dd>
			An entity (typically but not necessarily an individual 
			human) who has directly or indirectly observed an UA and 
			wishes to know something about it, starting with its ID. An 
			observer typically is on the ground and local (within VLOS 
			of an observed UA), but could be remote (observing via 
			Network RID or other surveillance), operating another UA, 
			aboard another aircraft , etc.
		</dd>
		<dt>Operation</dt>
		<dd>
			A flight, or series of flights of the same mission, by the 
			same UAS, in the same airspace volume, separated by at most 
			brief ground intervals.
		</dd>
		<dt>Operator</dt>
		<dd>
			"A person, organization or enterprise engaged in or 
			offering to engage in an aircraft operation." <xref 
			target="ICAOUTM" format="default"/>
		</dd>
		<dt>Operator ID Message</dt>
		<dd>
			F3411 Message Type 5. Provides CAA issued Operator ID, 
			only. Operator ID is distinct from UAS ID.
		</dd>
		<dt>PIC</dt>
		<dd>
			Pilot In Command. "The pilot designated by the operator, or 
			in the case of general aviation, the owner, as being in 
			command and charged with the safe conduct of a flight." 
			<xref target="ICAOATM" format="default"/>
		</dd>
		<dt>PII</dt>
		<dd>
			Personally Identifiable Information. In this context, 
			typically of the UAS operator, Pilot In Command (PIC) or 
			remote pilot, but possibly of an observer or other party.
		</dd>
		<dt>Remote Pilot</dt>
		<dd>
			A pilot using a GCS to exercise proximate control of an UA. 
			Either the PIC or under the supervision of the PIC.
		</dd>
		<dt>RF-LOS</dt>
		<dd>
			RF LOS. Typically used in describing operation of a direct 
			radio link between a GCS and the UA under its control, 
			potentially subject to blockage by foliage, structures, 
			terrain or other vehicles, but less so than V-LOS.
		</dd>
		<dt>RTCA</dt>
		<dd>
			Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics. US aviation 
			SDO. Cooperates extensively with EUROCAE.
		</dd>
		<dt>Self-ID Message</dt>
		<dd>
			F3411 Message Type 3. Provides a 1 byte descriptor and 23 
			byte ASCII free text field, only. Expected to be used to 
			provide context on the operation, e.g. mission intent.
		</dd>
		<dt>Standard RID</dt>
		<dd>
			Per the FAA NPRM, a mode of operation that must use both 
			Network RID (if Internet connectivity is available at the 
			time in the operating area) and Broadcast RID (always and 
			everywhere), and must provide both pilot/GCS location and 
			UA location. This mode is required for UAS that exceed the 
			allowed envelope (e.g. size, range) of Limited RID and for 
			all UAS equipped for Standard RID (even if operated within 
			parameters that would otherwise permit Limited RID). The 
			Broadcast RID portion corresponds roughly to EU Direct RID; 
			the Network RID portion corresponds roughly to EU Network 
			Identification Service.
		</dd>
		<dt>SDO</dt>
		<dd>
			Standards Development Organization. ASTM, IETF, et al.
		</dd>
		<dt>SDSP</dt>
		<dd>
			Supplemental Data Service Provider. An entity that 
			participates in the UTM system, but provides services 
			beyond those specified as basic UTM system functions. E.g., 
			provides weather data.
		</dd>
		<dt>System Message</dt>
		<dd>
			F3411 Message Type 4. Provides general UAS information, 
			including remote pilot location, multiple UA group 
			operational area, etc.
		</dd>
		<dt>U-space</dt>
		<dd>
			EU concept and emerging framework for integration of UAS 
			into all classes of airspace, specifically including high 
			density urban areas, sharing airspace with manned aircraft.
		</dd>
		<dt>UA</dt>
		<dd>
			Unmanned Aircraft. An aircraft which is intended to operate 
			with no pilot on board. In popular parlance, "drone".
		</dd>
		<dt>UAS</dt>
		<dd>
			Unmanned Aircraft System. Composed of UA, all required 
			on-board subsystems, payload, control station, other 
			required off-board subsystems, any required launch and 
			recovery equipment, all required crew members, and C2 links 
			between UA and control station.
		</dd>
		<dt>UAS ID</dt>
		<dd>
			UAS identifier. Although called "UAS ID", unique to the UA: 
			neither to the operator (as previous registration numbers 
			have been assigned), nor to the combination of GCS and UA 
			that comprise the UAS. Per <xref target="F3411-19" 
			format="default"/>: maximum length of 20 bytes; see <xref 
			target="IDtypes" format="default"></xref> for currently 
			defined values. 
		</dd>
		<dt>UAS ID Type</dt>
		<dd>
			Identifier type index. Per <xref target="F3411-19" 
			format="default"/>, 4 bits, values 0-3 already specified.
		</dd>
		<dt>UAS RID</dt>
		<dd>
			UAS Remote Identification. System for identifying UA during 
			flight by other parties.
		</dd>
		<dt>UAS RID Verification Service</dt>
		<dd>
			System component designed to handle the authentication 
			requirements of RID by offloading verification to a web 
			hosted service.
		</dd>
		<dt>USS</dt>
		<dd>
			UAS Service Supplier. "A  USS  is  an  entity  that assists 
			UAS  Operators with meeting  UTM operational  requirements 
			that enable safe and efficient use of airspace" and 
			"... provide services  to  support  the  UAS community, to 
			connect Operators and other entities to enable information 
			flow across the USS Network, and to promote shared 
			situational awareness among UTM participants" per <xref 
			target="CONOPS" format="default"/>.
		</dd>
		<dt>UTM</dt>
		<dd>
			UAS Traffic Management. Per ICAO, "A specific aspect of air 
			traffic management which manages UAS operations safely, 
			economically and efficiently through the provision of 
			facilities and a seamless set of services in collaboration 
			with all parties and involving airborne and ground-based 
			functions." In the US, per FAA, a "traffic management" 
			ecosystem for "uncontrolled" low altitude UAS operations, 
			separate from, but complementary to, the FAA's ATC system 
			for "controlled" operations of manned aircraft.
		</dd>
		<dt>V-LOS</dt>
		<dd>
			Visual LOS. Typically used in describing operation of an UA 
			by a "remote" pilot who can clearly directly (without video 
			cameras or any other aids other than glasses or under some 
			rules binoculars) see the UA and its immediate flight 
			environment. Potentially subject to blockage by foliage, 
			structures, terrain or other vehicles, more so than RF-LOS.
		</dd>
	</dl>
</section>
</section>
<section numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>UAS RID Problem Space</name>
<t>
	UA may be fixed wing Short Take-Off and Landing (STOL), rotary wing 
	(e.g., helicopter) Vertical Take-Off and Landing (VTOL), or hybrid. 
	They may be single engine or multi engine. The most common today 
	are multicopters: rotary wing, multi engine. The explosion in UAS 
	was enabled by hobbyist development, for multicopters, of advanced 
	flight stability algorithms, enabling even inexperienced pilots to 
	take off, fly to a location of interest, hover, and return to the 
	take-off location or land at a distance. UAS can be remotely 
	piloted by a human (e.g., with a joystick) or programmed to proceed 
	from Global Positioning System (GPS) waypoint to waypoint in a weak 
	form of autonomy; stronger autonomy is coming. UA are "low 
	observable": they typically have a small radar cross section; they 
	make noise quite noticeable at short range but difficult to detect 
	at distances they can quickly close (500 meters in under 17 seconds 
	at 60 knots); they typically fly at low altitudes (for the small 
	UAS to which RID applies in the US, under 400 feet AGL); they are 
	highly maneuverable so can fly under trees and between buildings.
</t>
<t>
	UA can carry payloads including sensors, cyber and kinetic weapons, 
	or can be used themselves as weapons by flying them into targets. 
	They can be flown by clueless, careless or criminal operators. Thus 
	the most basic function of UAS RID is "Identification Friend or 
	Foe" (IFF) to mitigate the significant threat they present. 
	Numerous other applications can be enabled or facilitated by RID: 
	consider the importance of identifiers in many Internet protocols 
	and services.
</t>
<t>
	Network RID from the UA itself (rather than from its GCS) and 
	Broadcast RID require one or more wireless data links from the UA, 
	but such communications are challenging due to $SWaP constraints 
	and low altitude flight amidst structures and foliage over terrain.
</t>
<t> 
	Disambiguation of multiple UA flying in close proximity may be very 
	challenging, even if each is reporting its identity, position and 
	velocity as accurately as it can.
</t>
<section numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>Network RID</name>
<t>
	Network RID has several variants. The UA may have persistent 
	onboard Internet connectivity, in which case it can consistently 
	source RID information directly over the Internet. The UA may have 
	intermittent onboard Internet connectivity, in which case the GCS 
	must source RID information whenever the UA itself is offline. The 
	UA may not have Internet connectivity of its own, but have instead 
	some other form of communications to another node that can relay 
	RID information to the Internet; this would typically be the GCS 
	(which to perform its function must know where the UA is).
</t>
<t>	The UA may have no means of sourcing RID information, in which case
	the GCS must source it; this is typical under FAA NPRM Limited RID 
	proposed rules, which require providing the location of the GCS 
	(not that of the UA). In the extreme case, this could be the pilot 
	using a web browser/application to designate, to an UAS Service 
	Supplier (USS) or other UTM entity, a time-bounded airspace volume 
	in which an operation will be conducted; this may impede 
	disambiguation of ID if multiple UAS operate in the same or 
	overlapping spatio-temporal volumes.
</t>
<t>
	In most cases in the near term, if the RID information is fed to 
	the Internet directly by the UA or GCS, the first hop data links 
	will be cellular Long Term Evolution (LTE) or Wi-Fi, but provided 
	the data link can support at least UDP/IP and ideally also TCP/IP, 
	its type is generally immaterial to the higher layer protocols. An 
	UAS as the ultimate source of Network RID information feeds an USS 
	acting as a Network RID Service Provider (Net-RID SP), which 
	essentially proxies for that and other sources; an observer or 
	other ultimate consumer of Network RID information obtains it from 
	a Network RID Display Provider (Net-RID DP), which aggregates 
	information from multiple Net-RID SPs to offer coverage of an 
	airspace volume of interest. Network RID Service and Display 
	providers are expected to be implemented as servers in 
	well-connected infrastructure, accessible via typical means such as 
	web APIs/browsers.
</t>
<t>
	Network RID is the more flexible and less constrained of the 
	defined UAS RID means, but is only partially specified in <xref 
	target="F3411-19" format="default"/>. It is presumed that IETF 
	efforts supporting Broadcast RID (see next section) can be easily 
	generalized for Network RID.
</t>
</section>
<section numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>Broadcast RID</name>
<t>
	<xref target="F3411-19" format="default"/> specifies three 
	Broadcast RID data links: Bluetooth 4.X; Bluetooth 5.X Long Range; 
	and Wi-Fi with Neighbor Awareness Networking (NAN). For compliance 
	with <xref target="F3411-19" format="default"/>, an UA must 
	broadcast (using advertisement mechanisms where no other option 
	supports broadcast) on at least one of these; if broadcasting on 
	Bluetooth 5.x, it is also required concurrently to do so on 4.x 
	(referred to in <xref target="F3411-19" format="default"/> as 
	Bluetooth Legacy).
</t>
<t>
	The selection of the Broadcast media was driven by research into 
	what is commonly available on 'ground' units (smartphones and 
	tablets) and what was found as prevalent or 'affordable' in UA. 
	Further, there must be an Application Programming Interface (API) 
	for the observer's receiving application to have access to these 
	messages. As yet only Bluetooth 4.X support is readily available, 
	thus the current focus is on working within the 26 byte limit of 
	the Bluetooth 4.X "Broadcast Frame" transmitted on beacon channels. 
	After nominal overheads, this limits the UAS ID string to a maximum 
	length of 20 bytes, and precludes the same frame carrying position, 
	velocity and other information that should be bound to the UAS ID, 
	much less strong authentication data. This requires segmentation 
	("paging") of longer messages or message bundles ("Message Pack"), 
	and/or correlation of short messages (anticipated by ASTM to be 
	done on the basis of Bluetooth 4 MAC address, which is weak and 
	unverifiable).
</t>
</section>
<section numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>DRIP Focus</name>
<t>
	DRIP will focus on making information obtained via UAS RID 
	immediately usable:
</t>
<ol spacing="normal" type="1">
	<li>
		by making it trustworthy (despite the severe constraints 
		of Broadcast RID);
	</li>
	<li>
		by enabling verification that an UAS is registered, and 
		if so, in which registry (for classification of trusted 
		operators on the basis of known registry vetting, even by 
		observers lacking Internet connectivity at observation time);
	</li>
	<li>
		by facilitating independent reports of UA’s aeronautical data 
		(location, velocity, etc.) to confirm or refute the operator 
		self-reports upon which UAS RID and UTM tracking are based;
	</li>
	<li>
		by enabling instant establishment, by authorized parties, 
		of secure communications with the remote pilot.
	</li>
</ol>
<t>
	Any UA can assert any ID using the <xref target="F3411-19" 
	format="default"/> required Basic ID message, which lacks any 
	provisions for verification. The Position/Vector message likewise 
	lacks provisions for verification, and does not contain the ID, so 
	must be correlated somehow with a Basic ID message: the developers 
	of <xref target="F3411-19" format="default"/> have suggested using 
	the MAC addresses, but these may be randomized by the operating 
	system stack to avoid the adversarial correlation problems of 
	static identifiers.
</t>
<t>
	The <xref target="F3411-19" format="default"/> optional 
	Authentication Message specifies framing for authentication data, 
	but does not specify any authentication method, and the maximum 
	length of the specified framing is too short for conventional 
	digital signatures and far too short for conventional certificates. 
	The one-way nature of Broadcast RID precludes challenge-response 
	security protocols (e.g., observers sending nonces to UA, to be 
	returned in signed messages). An observer would be seriously 
	challenged to validate the asserted UAS ID or any other information 
	about the UAS or its operator looked up therefrom.
</t>
<t>
	Further, <xref target="F3411-19" format="default"/> provides very 
	limited choices for an observer to communicate with the pilot, 
	e.g., to request further information on the UAS operation or exit 
	from an airspace volume in an emergency. The System Message 
	provides the location of the pilot/GCS, so an observer could 
	physically go to the asserted GCS location to look for the remote 
	pilot. An observer with Internet connectivity could look up 
	operator PII in a registry, then call a phone number in hopes 
	someone who can immediately influence the UAS operation will answer 
	promptly during that operation.
</t>
<t>	
	Thus complementing <xref target="F3411-19" format="default"/> with 
	protocols enabling strong authentication, preserving operator 
	privacy while enabling immediate use of information by authorized 
	parties, is critical to achieve widespread adoption of a RID system 
	supporting safe and secure operation of UAS.
</t>
</section>
</section>
<section numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>Requirements</name>
<section numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>General</name>
<ol spacing="normal" type="GEN-%d" group="gen">
	<li>
		Provable Ownership: DRIP MUST enable verification that 
		the UAS ID asserted in the Basic ID message is that of the 
		actual current sender of the message (i.e. the message is not a 
		replay attack or other spoof, authenticating e.g. by verifying 
		an asymmetric cryptographic signature using a sender provided 
		public key from which the asserted ID can be at least partially 
		derived), even on an observer device lacking Internet
		connectivity at the time of observation.
	</li>
	<li>
		Provable Binding: DRIP MUST enable binding all other F3411 
		messages from the same actual current sender to the UAS ID 
		asserted in the Basic ID message.
	</li>
	<li>
		Provable Registration: DRIP MUST enable verification that the 
		UAS ID is in a registry and identification of which one, even 
		on an observer device lacking Internet connectivity at the time 
		of observation; with UAS ID Type 3, the same sender may have 
		multiple IDs, potentially in different registries, but each ID 
		must clearly indicate in which registry it can be found.
	</li>
	<li>    
		Readability: DRIP MUST enable information (regulation required 
		elements, whether sent via UAS RID or looked up in registries) 
		to be read and utilized by both humans and software.
	</li>
	<li>
		Gateway: DRIP MUST enable Broadcast RID -> Network RID 
		application layer gateways to stamp messages with precise 
		date/time received and receiver location, then relay them to a 
		network service (e.g. SDSP or distributed ledger), to support 
		three objectives: mark up a RID message with where and when it 
		was actually received (which may agree or disagree with the 
		self-report in the set of messages); defend against reply 
		attacks; and support optional SDSP services such as 
		multilateration (to complement UAS position self-reports with 
		independent measurements).
	</li>
	<li>
		Finger (placeholder name): DRIP MUST enable dynamically 
		establishing, with AAA, per policy, E2E strongly encrypted 
		communications with the UAS RID sender and entities looked up 
		from the UAS ID, including at least the remote pilot and USS.
	</li>
	<li>
		QoS: DRIP MUST enable policy based specification of performance 
		and reliability parameters, such as maximum message 
		transmission intervals and delivery latencies.
	</li>
	<li>
		Mobility: DRIP MUST support physical and logical mobility of 
		UA, GCS and Observers. DRIP SHOULD support mobility of 
		essentially all participating nodes (UA, GCS, Observers, 
		Net-RID SP,	Net-RID DP, Private Registry, SDSP).
	</li>
	<li>
		Multihoming: DRIP MUST support multihoming of UA and GCS, for 
		make-before-break smooth handoff and resiliency against 
		path/link failure. DRIP SHOULD support multihoming of 
		essentially all participating nodes.
	</li>
	<li>
		Multicast: DRIP SHOULD support multicast for efficient 
		and flexible publish-subscribe notifications, e.g., of UAS 
		reporting positions in designated sensitive airspace volumes.
	</li>
	<li>
		Management: DRIP SHOULD support monitoring of the health 
		and coverage of Broadcast and Network RID services.
	</li>
</ol>
</section>
<section numbered="true" toc="default"> <name> Identifier</name>
<ol spacing="normal" type="ID-%d" group="id">
	<li>
		Length: The DRIP (UAS) entity [remote] identifier must be no 
		longer than 20 bytes (per <xref target="F3411-19" 
		format="default"/> to fit in a Bluetooth 4 advertisement 
		payload).
	</li>
	<li>
		Registry ID: The DRIP identifier MUST be sufficient to 
		identify a registry in which the (UAS) entity identified 
		therewith is listed.
	</li>
	<li>
		Entity ID: The DRIP identifier MUST be sufficient to 
		enable lookup of other data associated with the (UAS) entity 
		identified therewith in that registry.
	</li>
	<li>
		Uniqueness: The DRIP identifier MUST be unique within a 
		to-be-defined scope.
	</li>
	<li>
		Non-spoofability: The DRIP identifier MUST be 
		non-spoofable within the context of Remote ID broadcast 
		messages (some collection of messages provides proof of UA 
		ownership of ID). <!-- Bob please clarify -->
	</li>
	<li>
		Unlinkability: A DRIP UAS ID MUST NOT facilitate adversarial 
		correlation over multiple UAS operations; this may be 
		accomplished e.g. by limiting each identifier to a single use, 
		but if so, the UAS ID MUST support well-defined scalable timely 
		registration methods.
	</li>
</ol>
<t>
	Note that Registry ID and Entity ID are requirements on a single 
	DRIP entity Identifier, not separate (types of) ID. In the most 
	common use case, the Entity will be the UA, and the DRIP Identifier 
	will be the UAS ID; however, other entities may also benefit from 
	having DRIP identifiers, so the Entity type is not prescribed here.
</t>
<t>
	Whether a UAS ID is generated by the operator, GCS, UA, USS or 
	registry, or some collaboration thereamong, is unspecified; 
	however, there must be agreement on the UAS ID among these 
	entities.
</t>
</section>
<section numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>Privacy</name>
<ol spacing="normal" type="PRIV-%d" group="priv">
	<li>
		Confidential Handling: DRIP MUST enable confidential 
		handling of private information (i.e., any and all information 
		designated by neither cognizant authority nor the information 
		owner as public, e.g., personal data).
	</li>
	<li>
		Encrypted Transport: DRIP MUST enable selective strong 
		encryption of private data in motion in such a manner that only 
		authorized actors can recover it. If transport is via IP, then 
		encryption MUST be end-to-end, at or above the IP layer. DRIP 
		MUST NOT encrypt safety critical data to be transmitted over 
		Broadcast RID unless also concurrently sending that data via
		Network RID and obtaining frequent confirmations of receipt.
	</li>
	<li>
		Encrypted Storage: DRIP SHOULD facilitate selective strong 
		encryption of private data at rest in such a manner that only 
		authorized actors can recover it.
	</li>
</ol>
<t>
	How information is stored on end systems is out of scope for DRIP. 
	Encouraging privacy best practices, including end system storage 
	encryption, by facilitating it with protocol design reflecting such
	considerations, is in scope.
</t>
</section>
<section numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>Registries</name>
<ol spacing="normal" type="REG-%d" group="reg">
	<li>
		Public Lookup: DRIP MUST enable lookup, from the UAS ID, of 
		information designated by cognizant authority as public, and 
		MUST NOT restrict access to this information based on identity 
		of the party submitting the query.
	</li>
	<li>
		Private Lookup: DRIP MUST enable lookup of private information 
		(i.e., any and all information in a registry, associated with 
		the UAS ID, that is designated by neither cognizant authority 
		nor the information owner as public), and MUST, per policy, 
		enforce AAA, including restriction of access to this 
		information based on identity of the party submitting the 
		query.
	</li>
	<li>
		Provisioning: DRIP MUST enable provisioning registries with 
		static information on the UAS and its operator, dynamic 
		information on its current operation within the UTM (including 
		means by which the USS under which the UAS is operating may be 
		contacted for further, typically even more dynamic, 
		information), and Internet direct contact information for 
		services related to the foregoing.
	</li>
	<li>
		AAA Policy: DRIP MUST enable closing the AAA-policy registry 
		loop by governing AAA per registered policies and administering 
		policies only via AAA.
	</li>
</ol>
</section>
</section>
<section numbered="true" toc="default"> 
<name>Discussion and Limitations</name>
<t>
	This document is largely based on the process of one SDO, ASTM. 
	Therefore, it is tailored to specific needs and data formats of 
	this standard. Other organizations, for example in EU, do not 
	necessary follow the same architecture. IETF traditionally operates 
	assuming the source material for the standardization process is 
	publicly available. However, ASTM standards require a fee for 
	download. Therefore a double-liaison program at IETF might need to 
	be activated, providing free access to ASTM specifications for 
	contributors to IETF documents.
</t>
<t>
	The need for drone ID and operator privacy is an open discussion 
	topic. For instance, in the ground vehicular domain each car 
	carries a publicly visible plate number. In some countries, for 
	nominal cost or even for free, anyone can resolve the identity and 
	contact information of the owner. Civil commercial aviation and 
	maritime industries also have a tradition of broadcasting plane or 
	ship ID, coordinates and even flight plans in plain text. Community 
	networks such as OpenSky and Flightradar use this open information 
	through ADS-B to deploy public services of flight tracking. Many 
	researchers also use these data to perform optimization of routes 
	and airport operations. Such ID information should be integrity 
	protected, but not necessarily confidential.
</t>
<t>
	In civil aviation, aircraft identity is broadcast by a device known 
	as transponder. It transmits a four-digit squawk code, which is 
	assigned by a traffic controller to an airplane after approving a 
	flight plan. There are several reserved codes such as 7600 which 
	indicate radio communication failure. The codes are unique in each 
	traffic area and can be re-assigned when entering another control 
	area. The code is transmitted in plain text by the transponder and 
	also used for collision avoidance by a system known as Traffic 
	alert and Collision Avoidance System (TCAS). The system could be 
	used for UAS as well initially, but the code space is quite limited 
	and likely to be exhausted soon. The number of UAS far exceeds the 
	number of civil airplanes in operation.
</t>
<t>
	The ADS-B system is utilized in civil aviation for each “ADS-B Out” 
	equipped airplane to broadcast its ID, coordinates and altitude for 
	other airplanes and ground control stations. If this system is 
	adopted for drone IDs, it has additional benefit with backward 
	compatibility with civil aviation infrastructure; then, pilots and 
	dispatchers will be able to see UA on their control screens and 
	take those into account. If not, a gateway translation system 
	between the proposed drone ID and civil aviation system should be 
	implemented. Again, system saturation due to large numbers of UAS 
	is a concern.
</t>
<t>
	Wi-Fi and Bluetooth are two wireless technologies currently 
	recommended by ASTM specifications due to their widespread use and 
	broadcast nature. However, those have limited range (max 100s of 
	meters) and may not reliably deliver UAS ID at high altitude or 
	distance. Therefore, a study should be made of alternative 
	technologies from the telecom domain (WiMax, 5G) or sensor networks 
	(Sigfox, LORA). Such transmission technologies can impose 
	additional restrictions on packet sizes and frequency of 
	transmissions, but could provide better energy efficiency and 
	range. In civil aviation, Controller-Pilot Data Link Communications 
	(CPDLC) is used to transmit command and control between the pilots 
	and ATC. It could be considered for UAS as well due to long range 
	and proven use despite its lack of security <xref target="cpdlc" 
	format="default"/>.
</t>
<t>
	L-band Digital Aeronautical Communications System (LDACS) is being 
	standardized by ICAO and IETF for use in future civil aviation 
	<xref target="I-D.maeurer-raw-ldacs" format="default"/>. It 
	provides secure communication, positioning and control for aircraft 
	using a dedicated radio band. It should be analyzed as a potential 
	provider for UAS RID as well. This will bring the benefit of a 
	global integrated system creating a global airspace use 
	awareness.
</t>
</section>
<section anchor="IANA" numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>IANA Considerations</name>
<t>
	This document does not make any IANA request.
</t>
</section>
<section anchor="Security" numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>Security Considerations</name>
<t>
	DRIP is all about safety and security, so content pertaining to 
	such is not limited to this section. Potential vulnerabilities of 
	DRIP include but are not limited to:
</t>
	<ul>
		<li>
			Sybil attacks
		</li>
		<li>
			Confusion created by many spoofed unsigned messages
		</li>
		<li>
			Processing overload induced by attempting to verify many 
			spoofed signed messages (where verification will fail but 
			still consume cycles)
		</li>
		<li>
			Malicious or malfunctioning registries
		</li>
		<li>
			Interception of (e.g. Man In The Middle attacks on) 
			registration messages
		</li>
	</ul>
</section>
<section anchor="Privacy" numbered="true" toc="default"> 
<name>Privacy and Transparency Considerations</name>
<t>
	Privacy is closely related to but not synonomous with security, and 
	conflicts with transparency. Privacy and transparency are important 
	for legal reasons including regulatory consistency. [EU2018] <xref 
	target="EU2018" format="default"/>states "harmonised and 
	interoperable national registration systems... should comply with 
	the applicable Union and national law on privacy and processing of 
	personal data, and the information stored in those registration 
	systems should be easily accessible.”
</t>
<t>	
	Privacy and transparency (where essential to security or safety) 
	are also ethical and moral imperatives. Even in cases where old 
	practices (e.g. automobile registration plates) could be imitated, 
	when new applications involving PII (such as UAS RID) are addressed 
	and newer technologies could enable improving privacy, such 
	opportunities should not be squandered. Thus is is recommended that 
	all DRIP documents give due regard to <xref target="RFC6973" 
	format="default"/> and more broadly <xref target="RFC8280" 
	format="default"/>.
</t>
<t>
	DRIP information falls into two classes: that which, to achieve the 
	purpose, must be published openly as cleartext, for the benefit of 
	any Observer (e.g. the basic UAS ID itself); and that which must be 
	protected (e.g., PII of pilots) but made available to properly 
	authorized parties (e.g., public safety personnel who urgently need 
	to contact pilots in emergencies). This classification must be made 
	explicit and reflected with markings, design, etc. Classifying the 
	information will be addressed primarily in external standards; 
	herein it will be regarded as a matter for CAA, registry and 
	operator policies, for which enforcement mechanisms will be defined 
	within the scope of DRIP WG and offered. Details of the protection 
	mechanisms will be provided in other DRIP documents. Mitigation of 
	adversarial correlation will also be addressed.
</t>
</section>
</middle>
<back>
<displayreference target="I-D.ietf-drip-arch" to="drip-architecture"/> 
<displayreference target="I-D.moskowitz-hip-hierarchical-hit" to="hierarchical-hit"/> 
<displayreference target="I-D.moskowitz-hip-hhit-registries" to="hhit-registries"/> 
<displayreference target="I-D.moskowitz-hip-new-crypto" to="new-hip-crypto"/> 
<displayreference target="I-D.moskowitz-drip-crowd-sourced-rid" to="crowd-sourced-rid"/> 
<displayreference target="I-D.moskowitz-drip-secure-nrid-c2" to="drip-secure-nrid-c2"/> 
<displayreference target="I-D.moskowitz-drip-uas-rid" to="drip-uas-rid"/> 
<displayreference target="I-D.moskowitz-orchid-cshake" to="new-orchid"/> 
<displayreference target="I-D.wiethuechter-drip-auth" to="drip-auth"/> 
<displayreference target="I-D.wiethuechter-drip-identity-claims" to="drip-identity-claims"/> 

<references> <name>References</name>
<references> <name>Normative References</name>
	<xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119.xml"/>
	<xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8174.xml"/>
</references>

<references> <name>Informative References</name>
	<xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4122.xml"/>
	<xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4949.xml"/>
	<xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6973.xml"/>
	<xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8280.xml"/>
	<xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.ietf-drip-arch.xml"/>
    <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.moskowitz-hip-hierarchical-hit.xml"/>
    <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.moskowitz-hip-hhit-registries.xml"/>
    <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.moskowitz-hip-new-crypto.xml"/>
    <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.moskowitz-drip-crowd-sourced-rid.xml"/>
    <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.moskowitz-drip-secure-nrid-c2.xml"/>
    <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.moskowitz-drip-uas-rid.xml"/>
    <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.moskowitz-orchid-cshake.xml"/>
    <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.wiethuechter-drip-auth.xml"/>
    <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.wiethuechter-drip-identity-claims.xml"/>
	<xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.maeurer-raw-ldacs.xml"/>
	<reference anchor="cpdlc"  target="https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/18/5/1636">
        <front>
            <title>Controller-Pilot Data Link Communication Security</title>
            <author initials = "A." surname = "Gurtov">  <organization />   </author>
            <author initials = "T." surname = "Polishchuk">  <organization />   </author>
            <author initials = "M." surname = "Wernberg">  <organization />   </author>
            <date month="" year="2018" />
        </front>
        <seriesInfo name="MDPI Sensors" value="18(5), 1636"/>
	</reference> 
	<reference anchor="CTA2063A" target="">
	<front>
		<title>Small Unmanned Aerial Systems Serial Numbers</title>
		<author>
			<organization>ANSI</organization>
		</author>
		<date month="09" year="2019"/>
	</front>
	</reference>
	<reference anchor="Delegated" target="">
	<front>
		<title>Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/945 of 12 March 2019 on unmanned aircraft systems and on third-country operators of unmanned aircraft systems</title>
		<author>
			<organization> European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) </organization>
		</author>
		<date month="03" year="2019"/>
	</front>
	</reference>
	<reference anchor="EU2018" target="">
	<front>
		<title>2015/0277 (COD) PE-CONS 2/18</title>
		<author>
			<organization> European Parliament and Council </organization>
		</author>
		<date month="02" year="2018"/>
	</front>
	</reference>
	<reference anchor="F3411-19" target="">
	<front>
		<title>Standard Specification for Remote ID and Tracking</title>
		<author>
			<organization>ASTM</organization>
		</author>
		<date month="12" year="2019"/>
	</front>
	</reference>
	<reference anchor="ICAOATM" target="">
	<front>
		<title>Doc 4444: Procedures for Air Navigation Services: Air Traffic Management</title> <author>
			<organization> International Civil Aviation Organization </organization>
		</author>
		<date month="11" year="2016"/>
	</front>
	</reference>
	<reference anchor="ICAOUTM" target="">
	<front>
		<title>Unmanned Aircraft Systems Traffic Management (UTM) - A Common Framework with Core Principles for Global Harmonization, Edition 2</title> <author>
			<organization> International Civil Aviation Organization </organization>
		</author>
		<date month="11" year="2019"/>
	</front>
	</reference>
	<reference anchor="Implementing" target="">
	<front>
		<title>Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/947 of 24 May 2019 on the rules and procedures for the operation of unmanned aircraft </title>
		<author>
			<organization>European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)</organization>
		</author>
		<date month="05" year="2019"/>
	</front>
	</reference>
	<reference anchor="NPRM" target="">
	<front>
		<title>Notice of Proposed Rule Making on Remote Identification of Unmanned Aircraft Systems</title>
		<author>
			<organization>United States Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)</organization>
		</author>
		<date month="12" year="2019"/>
	</front>
	</reference>
	<reference anchor="Recommendations" target="">
	<front>
		<title>UAS ID and Tracking ARC Recommendations Final Report</title>
		<author>
			<organization>FAA UAS Identification and Tracking Aviation Rulemaking Committee</organization>
		</author>
		<date month="09" year="2017"/>
	</front>
	</reference>
	<reference anchor="CONOPS" target="">
	<front>
		<title>UTM Concept of Operations v2.0</title>
		<author>
			<organization>FAA Office of NextGen</organization>
		</author>
		<date month="03" year="2020"/>
	</front>
	</reference>
	<reference anchor="Roadmap" target="">
	<front>
		<title>Standardization Roadmap for Unmanned Aircraft Systems draft v2.0</title>
		<author>
			<organization>American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Unmanned Aircraft Systems Standardization Collaborative (UASSC)</organization>
		</author>
		<date month="04" year="2020"/>
	</front>
	</reference>
	<reference anchor="Stranger" target="">
	<front>
		<title>Stranger in a Strange Land</title>
		<author surname="Heinlein" initials="R.A.">
		</author>
		<date month="06" year="1961"/>
	</front>
	</reference>
	<reference anchor="WG105" target="">
	<front>
		<title>EUROCAE WG-105 draft Minimum Operational Performance Standards (MOPS) for Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) Electronic Identification"</title>
		<author>
			<organization> European Parliament and Council </organization>
		</author>
		<date month="06" year="2020"/>
	</front>
	</reference>
</references>
</references>
<section numbered="false" toc="default"> <name>Acknowledgments</name>
<t>
	The work of the FAA's UAS Identification and Tracking (UAS ID) 
	Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) is the foundation of later ASTM 
	<xref target="F3411-19" format="default"/> and IETF DRIP efforts. 
	The work of ASTM F38.02 in balancing the interests of diverse 
	stakeholders is essential to the necessary rapid and widespread 
	deployment of UAS RID. IETF volunteers who have contributed to this 
	draft include Amelia Andersdotter, Mohamed Boucadair, Toerless 
	Eckert, Susan Hares, Mika Järvenpää, Daniel Migault, Saulo Da 
	Silva and Shuai Zhao.
</t>
</section>
</back>
</rfc>
