From terry.davis@ijetonboard.com Wed Jan 2 16:28:01 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cin@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: cin@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE22221F888E for ; Wed, 2 Jan 2013 16:28:01 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.284 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.284 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, SARE_MILLIONSOF=0.315] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nxYk-aV5b145 for ; Wed, 2 Jan 2013 16:28:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from db3outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (db3ehsobe006.messaging.microsoft.com [213.199.154.144]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28EED21F885C for ; Wed, 2 Jan 2013 16:27:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail25-db3-R.bigfish.com (10.3.81.226) by DB3EHSOBE002.bigfish.com (10.3.84.22) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.23; Thu, 3 Jan 2013 00:27:59 +0000 Received: from mail25-db3 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail25-db3-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C45354C02E2; Thu, 3 Jan 2013 00:27:58 +0000 (UTC) X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:157.56.232.53; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); IPV:NLI; H:BLUPRD0811HT003.namprd08.prod.outlook.com; RD:none; EFVD:NLI X-SpamScore: -28 X-BigFish: VPS-28(z4c5Iz9371Ie6eL1102I542Izz1de0h1202h1e76h1d1ah1d2ahzz8275bh8275dh1033IL172cfch17326ah18602ehz2fh2a8h668h839h947hd25hf0ah1288h12a5h12a9h12bdh137ah13b6h1441h1504h1537h153bh15d0h162dh1631h1758h1155h) Received-SPF: pass (mail25-db3: domain of ijetonboard.com designates 157.56.232.53 as permitted sender) client-ip=157.56.232.53; envelope-from=terry.davis@ijetonboard.com; helo=BLUPRD0811HT003.namprd08.prod.outlook.com ; .outlook.com ; Received: from mail25-db3 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail25-db3 (MessageSwitch) id 1357172875906544_26876; Thu, 3 Jan 2013 00:27:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from DB3EHSMHS016.bigfish.com (unknown [10.3.81.245]) by mail25-db3.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8CA6260097; Thu, 3 Jan 2013 00:27:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from BLUPRD0811HT003.namprd08.prod.outlook.com (157.56.232.53) by DB3EHSMHS016.bigfish.com (10.3.87.116) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.225.23; Thu, 3 Jan 2013 00:27:55 +0000 Received: from BLUPRD0811MB425.namprd08.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.2.217]) by BLUPRD0811HT003.namprd08.prod.outlook.com ([10.255.123.38]) with mapi id 14.16.0245.002; Thu, 3 Jan 2013 00:27:42 +0000 From: Terry Davis To: "cin@ietf.org" , "Hugh Mote (hugh.mote@aeroconsult-tls.com)" , Julien Holstein Thread-Topic: Aviation Network Communications Requirements for Global Air Traffic Management -- Maybe a starting point RE: Gentle Reminder Thread-Index: Ac3pSR8nAymXa1WCSBKn96pyL/reEg== Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2013 00:27:41 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [207.173.123.203] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: ijetonboard.com Cc: "Wesley Eddy \(wes@mti-systems.com\)" , William Ivancic Subject: [cin] Aviation Network Communications Requirements for Global Air Traffic Management -- Maybe a starting point RE: Gentle Reminder X-BeenThere: cin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2013 00:28:02 -0000 All Hugh, maybe to get some discussions going here, you could forward this to t= he JCG mailing list? And to restate from my original post in CIN: ICAO plans to utilize wants Internet protocols to build new global air tra= ffic management networks to augment the current limited spectrum capacity O= SI based networks with a broadband Internet based capable of being utilized= across any available and authorized spectrums. They have designated Inter= net Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) as the foundation for this new generation of= air traffic management networks. However (at least in my opinion) the Int= ernet standards we have are still some key missing foundational pieces to a= llow aviation to readily build the global network infrastructure to support= these new (critical) air traffic management systems. As examples: - Aviation is prohibited from using any routing architecture that will resu= lt in aircraft network addresses from transitioning between Internet servic= e entry points. This is due to the churn in the global Border Gateway Prot= ocol tables induced when aircraft network that was previously attached to o= ne continent transitions to an entry point on another continent. The basic= Internet protocols were not designed to handle globally mobile platforms; = this transition causes millions of updates to router tables around the worl= d and IETF believes it could result in major disruptions in Internet traffi= c were it to be used on aircraft without isolation. - There is not a way to readily create a "closed/isolated" network using In= ternet protocols. And we probably truly do not want any routing re-distri= bution for the Internet's own good. Personally I think, something like a r= ooted address space, that only routed within itself might work well. But t= hat also couldn't be "private" like the 1918 space; one of the problems wit= h the using 1918 space that we discovered in aviation is that "everyone use= s it" so it exists everywhere; airport, airlines, air navigation service pr= oviders, and even the airplanes internally themselves which renders it unus= able for global aviation. - Information on how best to create a "private DNS" with its own roots that= will not interfere is global DNS.=20 - Plus as anyone running "high security" networks also knows, having a reli= able "trace back" mechanism is high on our desires to manage network securi= ty. This is especially desirable since this network will span numerous dif= ferent communications spectrums. - And in many cases aircraft will be simultaneously connected on this netwo= rk to services on different spectrums, from different nations/states, and e= ven different continents. =20 The problem here is that commercial aviation (and commercial UAV) networks = need to be able to readily create a limited-access/closed/isolated network = that almost literally protects the Internet itself from our globally mobile= assets. As anyone who has ran or designed large networks with hundreds or= thousands of sites around the globe knows, you must anticipate that they a= re always cross-connected somewhere. =20 So ICAO (with a 140 individual "self-governing" member nations) has to begi= n with the assumption that their new IP based air traffic management networ= ks will always be cross-linked to the main Internet somewhere and thus crea= te designs such that aviation will cannot be a threat to disrupt Internet r= outing and services anyway on the globe.=20 Take care Terry Davis, P.E.=A0 =A0|=A0 =A0Chief Scientist=A0 terry.davis@ijetonboard.com o. 206. 805. 6263 c. 425. 503. 5511 iJet Onboard=A0=A0=A0|=A0=A0www.ijetonboard.com PS: Here's the original informational RFC that Will, Wes, and I did several= years ago. http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5522.txt=20 -----Original Message----- From: cin-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:cin-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Terry= Davis Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2012 8:02 AM To: cin@ietf.org Subject: Re: [cin] Gentle Reminder All Apologies that we didn't get this setup for this meeting here in Atlanta; w= e plan to be ready for the spring meeting in Orlando. A couple of us have = begun to draft the problem statement and charter which we hope to post in t= he near future. For the aviation members of the group, we do have a working paper on aviati= on cyber security going to the ICAO Air Navigation Commission for presentat= ion at their session later this month. We seem to have broad support for i= t from the aviation community: regulatory bodies, standards bodies, and th= e major commercial entities. It is available on their website at: http://www.icao.int/Meetings/anconf12/WorkingPapers/Forms/AllItems.aspx = (Search the page for "cyber" to find our paper.) For those of you that didn't hear or see Panetta's warning on cyber war las= t month, I encourage you to read it: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/12/world/panetta-warns-of-dire-threat-of-cyb= erattack.html?pagewanted=3Dall&_r=3D0 If anything he may have understated the threats to critical infrastructure = around the globe; every nation faces this problem in today's world. We designed the Internet to be open and usable by everyone. It has worked = so well that our governments and commercial entities have also used it to s= upport the critical infrastructure systems that control besides on communic= ations; our power, our water, our food and medical distribution, hospitals,= vehicles, etc. And now within a few years, the communications to the airc= raft that you will be on flying to attend future IETF meetings. The problem is that we have not created the standards needed for these type= s of critical services to be placed on the Internet with truly enough secur= ity to allow them to be adequately defended from cyber-attacks. Or even to protect the Internet itself from some of the ways these groups m= ay use it. During the short life of Connexion by Boeing, we developed rout= ing techniques that allowed passengers to maintain their VPN's without drop= ping on trans-continental flights handing off between both different satell= ites and ground stations on different continents. This worked great for th= e passengers but with just a 150 aircraft in service; it created routing st= orms that were responsible for 20% of the churn in the global BGP tables. There are agreements in place to work on solutions to this problem between = the Internet community and the aviation community. Routing remains a core = concern. Aviation could use different routing protocols but all these come= with BGP re-distributors. Aviation could use only private networks or spe= cial routing techniques. The problem is that this is global service. Anyo= ne that has ever been involved with large global networks knows that "they = are always cross-linked somewhere", someone always violates the approved de= signs, re-distributed the wrong routing tree, etc. ICAO has 140+ independe= nt nation/states as members; 140+ independent operators of aviation communi= cations within their borders! With the current set of standards, can we s= afely integrated aviation's use of the Internet without risking disruption = to the Internet itself? I remain unconvinced. And for aviation and these critical infrastructure n= etworks that our lives and our families truly depend on, do we really inten= d to give them standards to operate with that are "naturally open" to anyon= e on the globe to try to communicate with? Look for more soon on the problem statement and charter. Take care Terry Davis, P.E. | Chief Scientist terry.davis@ijetonboard.com o. 206. 805. 6263 c. 425. 503. 5511 iJet Onboard | www.ijetonboard.com -----Original Message----- From: cin-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:cin-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ronal= d Bonica Sent: Monday, September 10, 2012 8:07 AM To: cin@ietf.org Subject: [cin] Gentle Reminder Folks, Does this group still intend to hold a BoF at IETF 85? If so, the cut-off d= ate for a BoF request is September 24. Generally, a BoF request includes: - a proposed charter - a problem statement (which should be posted as an Internet Draft) The deadline for posting version-00 IDs is October 15. However, it would be= great if the problem statement were posted by September 24. -------------------------- Ron Bonica vcard: www.bonica.org/ron/ronbonica.vcf _______________________________________________ cin mailing list cin@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cin This message and its attachments are the property of iJet Technologies, Inc= . and are intended solely for the use of the designated recipient(s) and th= eir appointed delegates. This email may contain information that is confide= ntial. If you are not the intended recipient, you are prohibited from print= ing, copying, forwarding or saving any portion of the message or attachment= s. Please delete the message and attachments and notify the sender immediat= ely. Thank you for your cooperation. _______________________________________________ cin mailing list cin@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cin From Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com Thu Jan 3 09:06:47 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cin@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: cin@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0153721F89C0 for ; Thu, 3 Jan 2013 09:06:47 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.315 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.315 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[SARE_MILLIONSOF=0.315] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JSJV1cfmcpt9 for ; Thu, 3 Jan 2013 09:06:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from slb-mbsout-02.boeing.com (slb-mbsout-02.boeing.com [130.76.64.129]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA43821F8792 for ; Thu, 3 Jan 2013 09:06:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from slb-mbsout-02.boeing.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by slb-mbsout-02.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/DOWNSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTP id r03H6b8O014418 for ; Thu, 3 Jan 2013 09:06:37 -0800 Received: from XCH-NWHT-06.nw.nos.boeing.com (xch-nwht-06.nw.nos.boeing.com [130.247.25.110]) by slb-mbsout-02.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/UPSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTP id r03H6Z1d014399 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=OK); Thu, 3 Jan 2013 09:06:35 -0800 Received: from XCH-NW-01V.nw.nos.boeing.com ([130.247.64.97]) by XCH-NWHT-06.nw.nos.boeing.com ([130.247.25.110]) with mapi; Thu, 3 Jan 2013 09:06:34 -0800 From: "Templin, Fred L" To: Terry Davis , "cin@ietf.org" , "Hugh Mote (hugh.mote@aeroconsult-tls.com)" , Julien Holstein Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2013 09:06:33 -0800 Thread-Topic: [cin] Aviation Network Communications Requirements for Global Air Traffic Management -- Maybe a starting point RE: Gentle Reminder Thread-Index: Ac3pSR8nAymXa1WCSBKn96pyL/reEgAikv/g Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-TM-AS-MML: No Cc: "Wesley Eddy \(wes@mti-systems.com\)" , William Ivancic Subject: Re: [cin] Aviation Network Communications Requirements for Global Air Traffic Management -- Maybe a starting point RE: Gentle Reminder X-BeenThere: cin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2013 17:06:47 -0000 Hi Terry, I agree on all counts, and this is why we developed the IRON family of technologies: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-templin-ironbis/ https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-templin-intarea-vet/ https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-templin-intarea-seal/ In response to the route optimization requirement, we have also developed Asymmetric Extended Route Optimization (AERO) and saw it through to publication as RFC6706. IRON, VET, SEAL and AERO fit very well into the Critical Infrastructure Networks (CIN) requirements, and especially address the mobility and route optimization needs without impacting the public Internet. What are the next steps in terms of wg formation? Thanks - Fred fred.l.templin@boeing.com=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: cin-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:cin-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Terry Davis > Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 4:28 PM > To: cin@ietf.org; Hugh Mote (hugh.mote@aeroconsult-tls.com); Julien > Holstein > Cc: Wesley Eddy (wes@mti-systems.com); William Ivancic > Subject: [cin] Aviation Network Communications Requirements for Global Ai= r > Traffic Management -- Maybe a starting point RE: Gentle Reminder >=20 > All >=20 > Hugh, maybe to get some discussions going here, you could forward this to > the JCG mailing list? >=20 > And to restate from my original post in CIN: >=20 > ICAO plans to utilize wants Internet protocols to build new global air > traffic management networks to augment the current limited spectrum > capacity OSI based networks with a broadband Internet based capable of > being utilized across any available and authorized spectrums. They have > designated Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) as the foundation for this > new generation of air traffic management networks. However (at least in > my opinion) the Internet standards we have are still some key missing > foundational pieces to allow aviation to readily build the global network > infrastructure to support these new (critical) air traffic management > systems. >=20 > As examples: > - Aviation is prohibited from using any routing architecture that will > result in aircraft network addresses from transitioning between Internet > service entry points. This is due to the churn in the global Border > Gateway Protocol tables induced when aircraft network that was previously > attached to one continent transitions to an entry point on another > continent. The basic Internet protocols were not designed to handle > globally mobile platforms; this transition causes millions of updates to > router tables around the world and IETF believes it could result in major > disruptions in Internet traffic were it to be used on aircraft without > isolation. >=20 > - There is not a way to readily create a "closed/isolated" network > using Internet protocols. And we probably truly do not want any routing > re-distribution for the Internet's own good. Personally I think, > something like a rooted address space, that only routed within itself > might work well. But that also couldn't be "private" like the 1918 space= ; > one of the problems with the using 1918 space that we discovered in > aviation is that "everyone uses it" so it exists everywhere; airport, > airlines, air navigation service providers, and even the airplanes > internally themselves which renders it unusable for global aviation. >=20 > - Information on how best to create a "private DNS" with its own roots > that will not interfere is global DNS. >=20 > - Plus as anyone running "high security" networks also knows, having a > reliable "trace back" mechanism is high on our desires to manage network > security. This is especially desirable since this network will span > numerous different communications spectrums. >=20 > - And in many cases aircraft will be simultaneously connected on this > network to services on different spectrums, from different nations/states= , > and even different continents. >=20 > The problem here is that commercial aviation (and commercial UAV) network= s > need to be able to readily create a limited-access/closed/isolated networ= k > that almost literally protects the Internet itself from our globally > mobile assets. As anyone who has ran or designed large networks with > hundreds or thousands of sites around the globe knows, you must anticipat= e > that they are always cross-connected somewhere. >=20 > So ICAO (with a 140 individual "self-governing" member nations) has to > begin with the assumption that their new IP based air traffic management > networks will always be cross-linked to the main Internet somewhere and > thus create designs such that aviation will cannot be a threat to disrupt > Internet routing and services anyway on the globe. >=20 > Take care >=20 >=20 > Terry Davis, P.E.=A0 =A0|=A0 =A0Chief Scientist > terry.davis@ijetonboard.com > o. 206. 805. 6263 c. 425. 503. 5511 > iJet Onboard=A0=A0=A0|=A0=A0www.ijetonboard.com >=20 > PS: Here's the original informational RFC that Will, Wes, and I did > several years ago. > http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5522.txt >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: cin-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:cin-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Terry Davis > Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2012 8:02 AM > To: cin@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [cin] Gentle Reminder >=20 > All >=20 > Apologies that we didn't get this setup for this meeting here in Atlanta; > we plan to be ready for the spring meeting in Orlando. A couple of us > have begun to draft the problem statement and charter which we hope to > post in the near future. >=20 > For the aviation members of the group, we do have a working paper on > aviation cyber security going to the ICAO Air Navigation Commission for > presentation at their session later this month. We seem to have broad > support for it from the aviation community: regulatory bodies, standards > bodies, and the major commercial entities. It is available on their > website at: > http://www.icao.int/Meetings/anconf12/WorkingPapers/Forms/AllItems.aspx > (Search the page for "cyber" to find our paper.) >=20 > For those of you that didn't hear or see Panetta's warning on cyber war > last month, I encourage you to read it: > http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/12/world/panetta-warns-of-dire-threat-of- > cyberattack.html?pagewanted=3Dall&_r=3D0 >=20 > If anything he may have understated the threats to critical infrastructur= e > around the globe; every nation faces this problem in today's world. >=20 > We designed the Internet to be open and usable by everyone. It has worke= d > so well that our governments and commercial entities have also used it to > support the critical infrastructure systems that control besides on > communications; our power, our water, our food and medical distribution, > hospitals, vehicles, etc. And now within a few years, the communications > to the aircraft that you will be on flying to attend future IETF meetings= . >=20 > The problem is that we have not created the standards needed for these > types of critical services to be placed on the Internet with truly enough > security to allow them to be adequately defended from cyber-attacks. >=20 > Or even to protect the Internet itself from some of the ways these groups > may use it. During the short life of Connexion by Boeing, we developed > routing techniques that allowed passengers to maintain their VPN's withou= t > dropping on trans-continental flights handing off between both different > satellites and ground stations on different continents. This worked grea= t > for the passengers but with just a 150 aircraft in service; it created > routing storms that were responsible for 20% of the churn in the global > BGP tables. >=20 > There are agreements in place to work on solutions to this problem betwee= n > the Internet community and the aviation community. Routing remains a cor= e > concern. Aviation could use different routing protocols but all these > come with BGP re-distributors. Aviation could use only private networks > or special routing techniques. The problem is that this is global > service. Anyone that has ever been involved with large global networks > knows that "they are always cross-linked somewhere", someone always > violates the approved designs, re-distributed the wrong routing tree, etc= . > ICAO has 140+ independent nation/states as members; 140+ independent > operators of aviation communications within their borders! With the > current set of standards, can we safely integrated aviation's use of the > Internet without risking disruption to the Internet itself? >=20 > I remain unconvinced. And for aviation and these critical infrastructure > networks that our lives and our families truly depend on, do we really > intend to give them standards to operate with that are "naturally open" t= o > anyone on the globe to try to communicate with? >=20 > Look for more soon on the problem statement and charter. >=20 >=20 > Take care >=20 > Terry Davis, P.E. | Chief Scientist > terry.davis@ijetonboard.com > o. 206. 805. 6263 c. 425. 503. 5511 > iJet Onboard | www.ijetonboard.com >=20 >=20 >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: cin-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:cin-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Ronald Bonica > Sent: Monday, September 10, 2012 8:07 AM > To: cin@ietf.org > Subject: [cin] Gentle Reminder >=20 > Folks, >=20 > Does this group still intend to hold a BoF at IETF 85? If so, the cut-off > date for a BoF request is September 24. >=20 > Generally, a BoF request includes: >=20 > - a proposed charter > - a problem statement (which should be posted as an Internet Draft) >=20 > The deadline for posting version-00 IDs is October 15. However, it would > be great if the problem statement were posted by September 24. >=20 > -------------------------- > Ron Bonica > vcard: www.bonica.org/ron/ronbonica.vcf >=20 > _______________________________________________ > cin mailing list > cin@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cin >=20 > This message and its attachments are the property of iJet Technologies, > Inc. and are intended solely for the use of the designated recipient(s) > and their appointed delegates. This email may contain information that is > confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you are prohibited > from printing, copying, forwarding or saving any portion of the message o= r > attachments. Please delete the message and attachments and notify the > sender immediately. Thank you for your cooperation. >=20 > _______________________________________________ > cin mailing list > cin@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cin >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > cin mailing list > cin@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cin From rbonica@juniper.net Thu Jan 3 09:39:28 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cin@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: cin@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29B6721F86D6 for ; Thu, 3 Jan 2013 09:39:28 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.675 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.675 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, UNRESOLVED_TEMPLATE=3.325, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IOkcAyZJzHer for ; Thu, 3 Jan 2013 09:39:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from exprod7og113.obsmtp.com (exprod7og113.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.179]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78F7F21F86CD for ; Thu, 3 Jan 2013 09:39:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from P-EMHUB03-HQ.jnpr.net ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob113.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUOXCT19wKno5zw4/sj64FxI0chobRMyY@postini.com; Thu, 03 Jan 2013 09:39:27 PST Received: from P-CLDFE02-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.60) by P-EMHUB03-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.37) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.213.0; Thu, 3 Jan 2013 09:37:02 -0800 Received: from o365mail.juniper.net (207.17.137.149) by o365mail.juniper.net (172.24.192.60) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.355.2; Thu, 3 Jan 2013 09:37:01 -0800 Received: from ch1outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (216.32.181.182) by o365mail.juniper.net (207.17.137.149) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Thu, 3 Jan 2013 09:39:21 -0800 Received: from mail6-ch1-R.bigfish.com (10.43.68.236) by CH1EHSOBE011.bigfish.com (10.43.70.61) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.23; Thu, 3 Jan 2013 17:37:00 +0000 Received: from mail6-ch1 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail6-ch1-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59E822A033B for ; Thu, 3 Jan 2013 17:37:00 +0000 (UTC) X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:157.56.238.5; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); (null); H:BY2PRD0512HT004.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; R:internal; EFV:INT X-SpamScore: -2 X-BigFish: PS-2(z4c5Izda00h1432Izz1de0h1202h1e76h1d1ah1d2ahzzz2dh2a8h668h839h944hd25hf0ah1220h1288h12a5h12a9h12bdh137ah13b6h1441h1504h1537h153bh15d0h162dh1631h1758h1155h) Received: from mail6-ch1 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail6-ch1 (MessageSwitch) id 1357234618857454_2213; Thu, 3 Jan 2013 17:36:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from CH1EHSMHS022.bigfish.com (snatpool3.int.messaging.microsoft.com [10.43.68.229]) by mail6-ch1.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEBE7400087; Thu, 3 Jan 2013 17:36:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from BY2PRD0512HT004.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (157.56.238.5) by CH1EHSMHS022.bigfish.com (10.43.70.22) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.225.23; Thu, 3 Jan 2013 17:36:57 +0000 Received: from BY2PRD0512MB653.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.5.92]) by BY2PRD0512HT004.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.255.243.37]) with mapi id 14.16.0245.002; Thu, 3 Jan 2013 17:36:55 +0000 From: Ronald Bonica To: "Templin, Fred L" , Terry Davis , "cin@ietf.org" , "Hugh Mote (hugh.mote@aeroconsult-tls.com)" , Julien Holstein Thread-Topic: [cin] Aviation Network Communications Requirements for Global Air Traffic Management -- Maybe a starting point RE: Gentle Reminder Thread-Index: Ac3pSR8nAymXa1WCSBKn96pyL/reEgAikv/gAAFNDjA= Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2013 17:36:54 +0000 Message-ID: <2CF4CB03E2AA464BA0982EC92A02CE2501E03AC2@BY2PRD0512MB653.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [66.129.232.2] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%0$Dn%*$RO%0$TLS%0$FQDN%$TlsDn% X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%12219$Dn%BOEING.COM$RO%2$TLS%5$FQDN%onpremiseedge-1018244.customer.frontbridge.com$TlsDn%o365mail.juniper.net X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%12219$Dn%IJETONBOARD.COM$RO%2$TLS%5$FQDN%onpremiseedge-1018244.customer.frontbridge.com$TlsDn%o365mail.juniper.net X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%12219$Dn%IETF.ORG$RO%2$TLS%5$FQDN%onpremiseedge-1018244.customer.frontbridge.com$TlsDn%o365mail.juniper.net X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%12219$Dn%AEROCONSULT-TLS.COM$RO%2$TLS%5$FQDN%onpremiseedge-1018244.customer.frontbridge.com$TlsDn%o365mail.juniper.net X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%12219$Dn%AEROSPACE-VISION.COM$RO%2$TLS%5$FQDN%onpremiseedge-1018244.customer.frontbridge.com$TlsDn%o365mail.juniper.net X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%12219$Dn%MTI-SYSTEMS.COM$RO%2$TLS%5$FQDN%onpremiseedge-1018244.customer.frontbridge.com$TlsDn%o365mail.juniper.net X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%12219$Dn%GRC.NASA.GOV$RO%2$TLS%5$FQDN%onpremiseedge-1018244.customer.frontbridge.com$TlsDn%o365mail.juniper.net Cc: "Wesley Eddy \(wes@mti-systems.com\)" , William Ivancic Subject: Re: [cin] Aviation Network Communications Requirements for Global Air Traffic Management -- Maybe a starting point RE: Gentle Reminder X-BeenThere: cin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2013 17:39:28 -0000 >=20 > What are the next steps in terms of wg formation? >=20 - Produce a problem statement - Produce a propose WG charter - Propose a BoF Ron