<?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-card-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-card-drip-reqs"/> <author fullname="Stuart W. 
	Card" initials="S." surname="Card"> <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>
    <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 and services 
	to support Unmanned Aircraft System Remote Identification (UAS 
	RID).
</t>
<t>
	Objectives include: complementing external technical standards as 
	regulator-accepted means of compliance with UAS RID regulations; 
	facilitating use of existing Internet resources to support UAS RID 
	and to enable enhanced related services; and enabling verification 
	that UAS RID information is trustworthy (to some extent, even in 
	the absence of Internet connectivity at the receiving node).
</t>
</abstract>
</front>
<middle>
<section numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>Introduction</name>
<t>
	Many safety and other considerations dictate that UAS be remotely 
	identifiable. Civil Aviation Authorities (CAAs) worldwide are 
	mandating 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"/>). CAAs currently 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 2 means of UAS 
	RID. Network RID defines a set of information for UAS to make 
	available globally indirectly via the Internet. Broadcast RID 
	defines a set of messages for Unmanned Aircraft (UA) to transmit 
	locally directly one-way over Bluetooth or Wi-Fi. Network RID 
	depends upon Internet connectivity, in several segments, from the 
	UAS to the observer. Broadcast RID should need Internet (or other 
	Wide Area Network) connectivity only for UAS registry information 
	lookup using the directly locally received UAS ID as a key. It is 
	expected that the same information will be provided via Broadcast 
	and Network RID; in the US, the FAA NPRM so specifies.
</t>
<t>
	<xref target="F3411-19" format="default"/> specifies 3 UAS ID 
	types. Type 1 is a static, manufacturer assigned, hardware serial 
	number per ANSI/CTA-2063-A "Small Unmanned Aerial System Serial 
	Numbers" <xref target="CTA2063A" format="default"/>. Type 2 is a 
	CAA assigned (presumably static) ID. Type 3 is a UAS Traffic 
	Management (UTM) system assigned UUID <xref target="RFC4122" 
	format="default"/>, which can but need not be dynamic. 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 in the clear as plaintext (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>
	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 (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 Size, Weight and 
	Power (SWaP). Cost is a significant impediment to the necessary 
	near-universal adoption of UAS send and observer receive RID 
	capabilities. 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>
	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"/>) may be desirable.
</t>
<t>
	DRIP’s 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. DRIP (originally called 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 
	architecture for UAS RID conforming to proposed regulations and 
	external technical standards will be described in a companion DRIP 
	Architecture document; this document describes only requirements.
</t>
<!--
	An Applicability Statement RFC for UAS RID, showing how to use IETF 
	standardized technologies for this purpose, will be a central work 
	product. Technical Specification RFCs will address any necessary 
	enhancements of specific supporting protocols. 
-->
</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>
	<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.
		</dd>
		<dt>ABDAA</dt>
		<dd>
			AirBorne DAA. Also known as "self-separation".
		</dd>

		<dt>AGL</dt>
		<dd>
			Above Ground Level. Relative altitude, above the variously 
			defined local ground level, typically of an UA, typically 
			measured in feet.
		</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. All systems that assist aircraft 
			from departure to landing. A broader functional and 
			geographic scope and/or a higher layer of abstraction than 
			ATC.
		</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>CAA</dt>
		<dd>
			Civil Aviation Authority. An example is the Federal 
			Aviation Administration (FAA) in the United States of 
			America.
		</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. Mainly used in military contexts. In the UAS 
			context, typically refers to the link between GCS and UA 
			over which the former controls the latter. Out of scope for 
			DRIP, even when this link is used to provide UA location to 
			the GCS or vice-versa, for subsequent RID transmission.
		</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>GBDAA</dt>
		<dd>
			Ground Based DAA. 
		</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>GPS</dt>
		<dd>
			Global Positioning System. In this context, misused in 
			place of Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) or more 
			generally SATNAV to refer generically to satellite based 
			timing and/or positioning.
		</dd>
		<dt>GRAIN</dt>
		<dd>
			Global Resilient Aviation Information Network. An effort to 
			develop an international IPv6 overlay network with 
			end-to-end security supporting all aspects of aviation.
		</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 
			for a GCS), typically measured in feet.
		</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. 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 
			participates in Network RID and provides to NetRID-DPs 
			information on UAS it manages. 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>
			Referred to in other UAS RID documents as a "user", but 
			there are also other classes of UAS RID users, so we prefer 
			"observer" to denote an individual who has observed an UA 
			and wishes to know something about it, starting with its 
			ID.
		</dd>
		<dt>Operator ID Message</dt>
		<dd>
			F3411 Message Type 5. Provides CAA issued Operator ID, only.
		</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>RF</dt>
		<dd>
			Radio Frequency. May be used as an adjective or as a noun; 
			in the latter case, typically means Radio Frequency energy.
		</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>Self-ID Message</dt>
		<dd>
			F3411 Message Type 3. Provides a 1 byte descriptor and 23 
			byte ASCII free text field, only.
		</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>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.
		</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.
		</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. Provide UTM 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. (From FAA UTM ConOps V1, May 2018).
		</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. 
	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). 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 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 WiFi, but provided 
	the data link can support at least IP and ideally TCP, its type is 
	generally immaterial to the higher layer protocols. An UAS or other 
	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 3 Broadcast RID 
	data links: Bluetooth 4.X; Bluetooth 5.X Long Range; and WiFi with 
	Neighbor Awareness Networking (NAN). For compliance with this 
	standard, 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 WG will focus on making information obtained via UAS RID 
	immediately usable (for the observer to determine whether the UAS 
	is trusted to fly in the airspace volume where and when observed, 
	to establish communications whereby the observer can inquire of the 
	pilot as to intent and/or direct the pilot to exit from the volume, 
	etc.):
</t>
<ol spacing="normal" type="1">
	<li>
		first by making it trustworthy (despite the severe constraints 
		of Broadcast RID);
	</li>
	<li>
		second 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>
		third 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. 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).
	</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 (with UAS ID Type 3, the same sender may have multiple IDs, 
		potentially in different registries, but each ID should clearly 
		indicate in which registry it can be found).
	</li>
	<li>
		Public Lookup: DRIP MUST enable lookup, from the UAS 
		ID, of information designated by cognizant authority as public.
	</li>
	<li>
		Private Lookup: DRIP MUST enable lookup, with AAA, per 
		policy, 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).
	</li>
	<li>    
		Readability: DRIP MUST enable information to be read 
		and utilized by both humans and software.
	</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>
<!-- Broadcast RID being one-way does not imply no 2-way avail. -->
<!-- broadcast info enabling 2-way, e.g. IP addr & WiFi channel? -->
	<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>
	<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 all participating nodes.
	</li>
	<li>
		Multihoming: DRIP MUST support multihoming of UA, for 
		make-before-break smooth handoff and resiliency against 
		path/link failure. DRIP SHOULD support multihoming of 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>
<t>
	It is highly desirable that Broadcast RID receivers be able to 
	stamp messages with accurate date/time received and receiver 
	location, then relay them to a network service (e.g. SDSP or 
	distributed ledger). This supports 3 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).
</t>
</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.
	</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>
</ol>
<t>
	A DRIP UAS ID MUST NOT facilitate adversarial correlation of UAS 
	operational patterns; this may be accomplished e.g. by limiting 
	each identifier to a single use, but if so, the UAS ID MUST support 
	defined scalable timely registration methods.
</t>
<t>
	Mechanisms standardized in DRIP WG MUST be capable of proving 
	ownership of a claimed UAS ID, and SHOULD be capable of doing so 
	immediately on an observer device lacking Internet connectivity at 
	the time of observation.
</t>
<t>
	Mechanisms standardized in DRIP WG MUST be capable of verifying 
	that messages claiming to have been sent from a UAS with a given 
	UAS ID indeed came from the claimed sender.
</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.
	</li>
	<li>
		Encrypted Storage: DRIP SHOULD enable selective strong 
		encryption of private data at rest in such a manner that only 
		authorized actors can recover it.
	</li>
</ol>
<t>
	As satisfying these requirements may require that authorized actors 
	have e.g. Internet connectivity to a Remote ID USS to enable 
	decryption, and such connectivity cannot be assured, DRIP SHOULD 
	provide automatic fallback to plaintext transmission of 
	safety-critical information when necessary.
</t>
</section>
</section>
<section anchor="IANA" numbered="true" toc="default"> <name>IANA Considerations</name>
<t>
	It is likely that an IPv6 prefix or other namespace will be needed; 
	this will be specified in other documents.
</t>
</section>
<section 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. DRIP information must be 
	divided into 2 classes: that which, to achieve the purpose, must be 
	published openly in clear plaintext, for the benefit of any 
	observer; 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). 
	Details of the protection mechanisms will be provided in other 
	documents. 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. 
	Mitigation of adversarial correlation will also be addressed.
</t>
</section>
<section numbered="true" 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 WG 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.
</t>
</section>
</middle>
<back>
<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"/>
	<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="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="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="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="Stranger" target="">
	<front>
		<title>Stranger in a Strange Land</title>
		<author surname="Heinlein" initials="R.A.">
		</author>
		<date month="06" year="1961"/>
	</front>
	</reference>
</references>
</references>
</back>
</rfc>
