draft meeting report€¦ · web viewmeeting report 1st june 2012. aeronautical communications...

ACP WG-MI/19 MEETING REPORT

1st June 2012

AERONAUTICAL COMMUNICATIONS PANEL (ACP)

WG M – Maintenance – 19th Meeting

Bucharest, Romania, 30th May – 1st June 2012

Report of ACP WGM-19 Meeting

Presented by the Secretary and Rapporteur

Summary

This document is the ACP WGM-19 Meeting Report.

Report of ACP, WG-M-19 Meeting(Bucharest, 30 May-Jun 01, 2012)

Table of Contents

1. AGENDA ITEM 1: APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND REVIEW OF ACTION ITEMS..32. AGENDA ITEM 2: APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA AND REVIEW OF WG-I/13

MEETING REPORT AND ACTION ITEMS....................................................................33. AGENDA ITEM 3(a) - ATN Security Standards – Proposed Approach (WP06, WP12). .54. AGENDA ITEM 3(c) - Protected Modes ADS-C and FIS alignment (WP13)...................85. AGENDA ITEM 7(e) - Annex 10 Vol. 2 proposal. (WP08)...............................................86. AGENDA ITEM 3(b) - AMHS and Directory Updates (WP09, WP10, WP11, IP03).......97. AGENDA ITEM 6(b) – SwiftBroadband (WP07) (IP02) -Update of SARPS and

Guidance Material.............................................................................................................118. AGENDA ITEM 4 – Update on VDL Mode 2 Documents (WP04, WP05)....................139. AGENDA ITEM 7(a) – Working Group S Progress........................................................1310. AGENDA ITEM 7(b) – AN Conf 12 Preparation............................................................1311. AGENDA ITEM 7(c) – Collaboration with UASSG........................................................1312. AGENDA ITEM 7(d) – SELCAL Code Pool Shortage) (WP03)...................................1413. AGENDA ITEM 7(f) – LINK 2000 Update (IP05).........................................................1414. AGENDA ITEM 7(g) – Future of Doc 9880...................................................................1515. AGENDA ITEM 2 – Configuration Control Board (CCB) Process (IP04).....................1616. AGENDA ITEM 10; NEXT MEETING...........................................................................1617. APPENDIX A - ACP WGI AGENDA.............................................................................1718. APPENDIX C LIST OF ATTENDEES............................................................................1919. APPENDIX D – TABLE OF ACTION ITEMS AND OUTCOMES...............................20

document.doc Page2


Note: This report follows the chronological order in which agenda items were discussed.

AGENDA ITEM 1: APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND REVIEW OF ACTION ITEMS

1.1 The meeting was opened by the Rapporteur, Brent Phillips who then presented the agenda to the meeting along with WPs/IPs mapped to each item as well as a schedule. This was accepted by the meeting without change. The agenda is given in Appendix A.

1.2

AGENDA ITEM 2: APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA AND REVIEW OF WG-I/13 MEETING REPORT AND ACTION ITEMS.

2.1 A draft agenda coordinated by the Rapporteur with key members of the WG was presented and accepted by the meeting. The agenda is in Appendix A of this report.

2.2 The meeting then proceeded to allocate WPs and IPs to agenda items. The attached agenda was updated to show these allocations.

2.3 Action Items were reviewed with the following outcome:

2.4 ACTION WG-M/15-01: Secretary to explore the possibility of improving the collection of data related to implementation issues by allowing the Regional Offices to act convey information related to implementation issues to ICAO HQ, thus allowing the Secretariat to then decide on the necessary action. Status – To remain OPEN

2.5 ACTION WG-M/15-04: Secretary to provide guidance material on the use of the AMC in Part 2(b) of Document 9880. Status – To remain OPEN.

2.6 ACTION WG-M/16-02 Secretary to take action to allow the ICAO GIS Portal to be used as a means to the timely capture information on bilateral AMHS connections and other CNS developments. This includes the possibility of integrating some of the existing EUROCONTROL/ICAO EUR on-line databases with the ICAO GIS Portal. Status – To remain OPEN

2.7 ACTION WG-M/16-05: Once the AeroMACS profile is available, the Secretary to take action on the establishment of WG-S. Status – CLOSED.

2.8 ACTION WG-M/16-06: Jean-Marc Vacher to amend Doc 9880 Part IIB to reflect the amendment proposal. Status – To remain OPEN.

2.9 ACTION WG-M/16-08: Tom McParland to obtain approval for Doc 9880 Security APs. Status – CLOSED.

2.10 ACTION WG-M/16-09: Secretary to investigate the possibility of an on-line repository for Amendment Proposals. Status – CLOSED

2.11 ACTION WG-M/16-10: Secretary to remove the application-level message sets and user requirements of the CPDLC application from Doc 9880. Greg Saccone will

document.doc Page3


provide the updated ADS-C and FIS applications, as defined by EUROCAE WG-78 and RTCA SC-214, for inclusion in Doc 9880 after the RTCA SC-214/EUROCAE WG-78 validation period is completed (currently scheduled for 3Q11). Status – CLOSED as required material was submitted as WP13.

2.12 ACTION WG-M/16-12: Secretary/Ligler to amend Doc 9861 and submit for approval and publication concurrently with similar action to Doc 9871. Status – CLOSED.

2.13 ACTION ITEM WG-M/17-2: Where appropriate, Secretary to take steps to ensure alignment between actual implementation and provisions of Doc 9880. Status – To remain OPEN.

2.14 ACTION ITEM WG-M/17-6: Secretary to propose suggested VDL Mode 4 amendment to the next meeting of the WGW. Status – CLOSED.

2.15 ACTION ITEM WG-M/17-8: Secretary to forward WP-5 to WG-F for consideration. Secretary to also propose suggested Annex 10 Vol 5 amendment to next meeting of WGW. Status - CLOSED

2.16 ACTION ITEM WG-M/17-9: Secretary to amend Doc 9776 to reflect the changes given in WP-16. Status – CLOSED as material was submitted in papers submitted in WP04 and WP05.

2.17 ACTION ITEM WG-M/17-10. Secretary to forward WP-19 to WG-F with a request to development amendments to Annex 10 Volume V. Status- CLOSED

2.18 ACTION ITEM WG-M/18-1: Vic Patel (FAA) will produce a report to WGW in September about the current status of the work and the planned activities to define security provisions for Datalink services. The report will be co-ordinated with SC-214/WG-78 and EUROCONTROL before submission. Status – CLOSED as material submitted in WP06 and WP12.

2.19 ACTION ITEM WG-M/18-2: Peter Muraca to contact Gregg Anderson to find out if the COCR is to be updated and how. Status – CLOSED.

2.20 ACTION ITEM WG-M/18-3: J-Y Piram to forward details of the previous CCB to the Secretary for consideration. Status – CLOSED.

2.21 ACTION ITEM WG-M/18-4: Secretary to convey WG-M view on AFTN modification to AFSG. Status- CLOSED.

2.22 ITEM FOR FOLLOW-UP #3: WG-M to consider a study to assess the impact of the security provisions for the ATN dialogue service on existing A/G application implementations and the Upper Layer Communication Services. Status – ONGOING

2.23 ITEM FOR FOLLOW-UP #4: WG-M members to propose items for consideration at the 12th Air Navigation Conference. Status – CLOSED as no further meetings to take place.

document.doc Page4


2.24 ITEM FOR FOLLOW-UP #17-2: WG-M to determine who shall oversee CCB process, initially this shall be the Secretary. Individuals to each have responsibility for a separate volume of Doc 9880 to be appointed. Status – To remain OPEN. Discussion at end of meeting resulted in some aspects becoming actions items however general item to remain open until CCB fully defined.

2.25 ITEM FOR FOLLOW-UP #17-3: WG-M to monitor progress on the development of a broadcast solution for VDL Mode using the ATN. Status – To remain OPEN.

2.26 ITEM FOR FOLLOW-UP #18-1: The WG-M CCB process to be postponed until justified by the document processing workload. Status – To remain OPEN until CCB activated.

AGENDA ITEM 3(a) - ATN Security Standards – Proposed Approach (WP06, WP12)

3.1 At WG-M/18 July 2011 in Montreal meeting an action was assigned to FAA to coordinate with EUROCONTROL and develop security strategy. Vic Patel, FAA presented WP 06, which resulted from coordination with EUROCONTROL. The paper proposes updates to ICAO Doc 9880 with the Secure Dialogue Service (SDS).

3.2 The Secure Dialogue Service is an alternative to implementing security in the ULCS. Besides reducing ULCS complexity, the Secure Dialogue Service permits security to be done all in one sub-layer rather than involving CM for key exchange. The Secure Dialogue Service (SDS) facilitates: (i) interworking with current implementations and (ii) the optional implementation of security and (iii) is consistent with ATN/IPS security requirements for legacy applications.

3.3 The WP provided background on the ATN/OSI and ATN/IPS protocols stacks. The paper further provided details on the original addition of security to the ATN/OSI stack in Doc 9705 Edition 3, which addressed the standards for securing air-ground communications, which were developed in ICAO communications panels as an extension to the OSI standards.

3.4 In order to simplify implementation of ATN Security, EUROCONTROL and the FAA have been coordinating to define an alternative implementation that would be simpler to implement and not require significant changes to the Doc 9880 ULCS. This alternative implementation is called the Secure Dialogue Service. The paper presented the proposal for the Secure Dialogue Service as a simplification of the ATN/OSI protocol stack and described how the Secure Dialogue Service facilitates the optional implementation and use of security. This approach eliminates doc 9705 Edition 3 placement of security in the ULCS, which added complexity to the ULCS when compared with Edition 2 without security.

3.5 The paper emphasised that optional Implementation/use of Security with the Secure Dialogue Service approach, provides flexibility in terms of implementation and optional use (or non-use). The Secure Dialogue service could be implemented but its use or not would depend on the operational domain.

document.doc Page5


3.6 Security requirements in the ATN/IPS protocol stack were discussed. This stack has been defined in ICAO Doc 9896, which uses the Mobile IP as the mobility solution over TCP/IP or UDP/IP protocol. Doc 9896 includes an IP Dialogue Service which allows legacy (ATN/OSI) applications such as CPDLC and CM to operate in the ATN/IPS environment. The IP Dialogue Service presents the same logical interface to legacy applications as in the OSI environment.

3.7 The paper summarized the documentation changes to Doc 9880 Part III, Chapter 2, ULCS, changes to Doc 9880, Part IV B, Security, and changes to Doc 9880 Part I, Context Management.

3.8 The paper addressed compatibility with existing implementations of Doc 9705 Ed2 to meet Europe’s the single European Sky Regulation (EC) 29/2009, the provision of data link services in Europe, with operations starting from February 2013.

3.9 The paper summarized the Secure Dialogue Service proposal:

o The proposed Secure Dialogue Service approach would simplify the implementation of ATN Security.

o Security is performed in only one place, i.e., in the Secure Dialogue Service sub-layer.

o The Doc 9880 ULCS can be updated to remove the security features. This will become an equivalent to Doc 9705 Edition 2 but with PDRs incorporated.

o The Secure Dialogue Service provides implementation options: It can be implemented or not implemented and if implemented used or not depending on the operational domain.

o In any case the applications and ULCS would be the same

3.10 The WG raised various questions addressing crypto, SDS primitives, need of new SESE, validation, documentation management. From the paper, it was not clear whether the approach would require a new dialogue service and whether or not the ULCS and the application would be the same, since more technical details were needed. The questions raised being technical in nature will be addressed during the development of ULCS and SDS material.

3.11 Additionally there were no high level security requirements presented, hence it is unclear whether the technical solution will satisfy these, once developed. This is a great concern to the group. In the interests of expediency and the maintenance of programme schedules, the group will continue to work on security solutions in anticipation of future requirements.

3.11 It was agreed to form an SDS sub-group under WG-M. This will include key members from RTCA-214/EUROCAE-78, to develop detail technical material for ULCS and SDS.

ACTION ITEM 19-1: Vic Patel to form the SDS sub-group to support WG-M.

document.doc Page6


3.12 The proposed SDS approach (an alternative to ULCS security) was coordinated with EUROCONTROL and hence the WG agreed to start developing technical material that could be used for a future update of Doc. 9880.

3.13 Greg Saccone presented WP12, Joint Airbus-Boeing Position on Datalink Security. The paper gave concerns about implementing a security solution before performing a thorough coordination between stakeholders (FAA/NextGen and Eurocontrol/SESAR). This includes joint review and understanding of any threat assessments, clearly defining the full requirements of what threats the security solution is supposed to protected against, and then ensuring that the security solution is also vetted with appropriate bodies so that the final solution is harmonized amongst stakeholders.

3.14 If these steps are not taken, divergent positions will result in partial deployment of

end-to-end Data Security among the airspaces. This situation would not allow aircraft manufacturers to claim any security benefit in the end as the use of the implemented Data Security mechanism would be optional and not consistent among the different airspaces.

3.15 Additionally, the financial and technical implementations should be fully understood

prior to dictating a security solution. Based on past experiences with implementations in avionics, it is obvious that making end-to-end Data Security part of the minimum capability would have a substantial negative impact on the general business case for next generation ATS datalink avionics, despite any proposed simplifications in the technical standards. There would also be the additional standards modifications and validation work within SC-214/WG-78 to consider since, as mentioned previously, there currently are no specific security requirements.

3.16 Related risks are obvious: much higher costs associated with the design and

implementation of a relevant security solution as well as significant delays in airborne equipage due to the introduction of new requirements. The risk will be even greater if no satisfactory resolution can be found for the first issue (lack of a globally harmonized position). Additionally the supporting infrastructure beyond the technical piece, without which a security implementation on the aircraft and ground systems would be useless, would also need to be specified, agreed to internationally, and deployed within the timeframe envisioned for initial operational capability of SC-214/WG-78.

3.17 The paper ended by recommending specific steps before proceeding with datalink

security:- FAA/NextGen and Eurocontrol/SESAR ensure coordination on this sensitive

topic, including a joint review of any threat assessment from which security requirements are derived. From this stakeholders can relay their requirements for security to the appropriate bodies rather than proposing solutions without disclosing the driving requirements.

- SC214/WG78 requests advice from ICAO (e.g. the OPLINK Panel) to ensure that the need for security is issued from a globally harmonized position.

- Other relevant bodies, such as the AEEC Datalink Security subgroup, are included in the discussion to ensure that any solution is coordinated with prevailing aviation standards.

document.doc Page7


- The financial and technical implications of implementing security are thoroughly assessed and understood before taking further action.

3.18 It was noted that some of the recommendations were starting to be done. One

important point was that SESAR does have security work packages (16.6), but it was understood that it will develop a methodology for ATS security and not ATN datalink security specifically. Therefore the SESAR security requirements are not known at present, there would likely be differing conclusions on security needs and requirements between the FAA and SESAR. This led to the following Action Item:

ACTION ITEM 19-2: EUROCONTROL to report on the status of the SESAR WP16 activities addressing security and any other relevant activities.

3.20 The impacts of the delays on equipage was discussed. Since the anticipated security approach was unclear, it is impossible to determine the exact impact it would have on aircraft architectures. However, there would likely be a multi-year delay in equipage in order to accommodate any change, with a corresponding increase in avionics cost. The current roadmaps for both NextGen and SESAR do not take this impact into account, so that must also be considered.

3.21 It was explained that the SESAR work on security would not produce deliverables until well after 2013. It was also pointed out that the US had developed security requirements for Segment 2 however these could not be released. This resulted in the following action item:

ACTION ITEM 19-3: Vic Patel to attempt to obtain threat assessment and subsequent impact on the cost and schedule for baseline 2. In the event that this cannot be made public, personnel (from WG-M) with appropriate security clearances could be tasked with this work.

3.22 It was pointed out that this would be needed by mid-2013 to allow the development in time for Baseline 2.

3.23 It was agreed that the development of the security standards would be carried out under the newly formed SDS Sub-Group and that issues brought forth by outside observers (ie; airframe and avionics manufacturers) would be addressed during that process.

3.24 Given programme schedule requirements, WG-M will proceed with the development of technical security provisions using SDS (as described in Action Item 19-1) for possible inclusion in a future version of Doc 9880. In parallel with this, Vic Patel will attempt to obtain information on the FAA security requirements as called for in Action item 19-3 and EUROCONTROL will report in the SESAR security activities as called for in Action Item 19-2. The last two activities are necessary to ensure that WG-M is using its resources to produce appropriate material.

AGENDA ITEM 3(c) - Protected Modes ADS-C and FIS alignment (WP13)

4.1 Greg Saccone presented WP13, Update for Publication of Technical Specifications for FIS and ADS-C Applications and Normalization of Doc 9880 with SC-214/WG-78 Standards. This paper outlined the changes envisaged as needed to update Doc 9880

document.doc Page8


to be in line and consistent with the evolving SC-214/WG-78 standards by going through the applications and identifying updates that would need to be done. Additionally, the current state of all the applications as defined and used by SC-214/WG-78 was also discussed. The paper also proposed how the updates to 9880 would be done.

4.2 However, the paper noted that these updates to 9880 should be done after the bulk of

the current validation activities are completed in order to avoid multiple changes to 9880 due to changing SC-214/WG-78 standards. This will likely be early in 2013, in keeping with the SC-214/WG-78 schedule to complete its activities.

4.3 CM, CPDLC and ULCS have already been transferred into Doc 9880. However, the

versions of the applications defined in 9880 were from Doc 9705 Edition 3, which was never implemented. The paper argued that these features should be removed as part of the editing process in order to have consistent documentation. This included CM version 2 services and security provisions. It was noted that the final disposition of the security provisions, and whether they remain in Doc 9880 or are removed, will be somewhat dependent on the status of the proposed solution to provide backwards-compatible security.

4.4 For FIS and ADS-C, the sections in Doc 9880 are blank, so their inclusion into 9880

will be a more straight-forward numbering and format exercise. There will also need to be checks done to ensure that the user requirements in both sets of documents are consistent.

4.5 Finally, the publication schedule of Doc 9880 Edition 2, with these changes, was

discussed (under Any other business agenda item). The Secretary indicated that it would likely take 6 months to a year for complete publication and release of the document from when it is submitted.

4.6 Frederic Picard questioned whether it made sense to remove the CM version 2

services as proposed by the paper. Greg responded that there was not currently an identified need for that functionality, so it should not remain in the document if it does not have an identified need. This resulted in the following action item:

ACTION ITEM 19-#: Frederic Picard and Greg Saccone to raise this issue with SC-214/WG-78 and determine whether CM Version 2 services remain in Doc 9880. 4.7 Fred then queried the proposed removal of the security parameter functions from

CPDLC, noting that was the difference between CPDLC versions 1 and 2. Greg agreed, and said that the final removal would be based on the output of the security discussions within the proposed SDS sub-group.

4.8 Liviu wondered how the changes to 9880 would be managed, since there are potential

multiple changes by different groups. Greg said changes would be coordinated with the proposed SDS sub-group, to ensure consistency.

4.9 Nikos suggested that we don’t move information into 9880 too soon, or we will end up

managing multiple changes due to changes resulting from validation work on the SC-214/WG-78 documentation, which was agreed to by the group. Additionally, he was

document.doc Page9


wondering whether we could remove the “PM” label, since we are attempting to have a single CPDLC application that is PM. Fred said that there are still non-PM CPDLC supported, and at a technical level.

4.10 The meeting was advised that ICAO had dropped the label, “PM” when describing these applications however to distinguish between protected and non-protected applications, WG-M agreed to instead identify non-protected versions of the applications as follows, non-protected “application name”.

4.11 Greg also presented the latest SC-214/WG-78 schedule to complete. This shows that

the final changes to the SC-214/WG-78 documentation should be received by mid-2013, at which point the documents will be stable for the publication cycle.

ITEM FOR FOLLOW-UP 19-1: WG-M to ensure that provisions for ADS-C and FIS and the other changes as needed are incorporated into Doc. 9880 by early 2013.

AGENDA ITEM 7(e) - Annex 10 Vol. 2 proposal. (WP08)

5.1 Jean-Marc Vacher presented WP8, which included a proposed amendment to ICAO ANNEX 10 Volume II resulting from enhanced operational requirements from Amendment 1 of PANS ATM (Doc 4444) known as FPL 2012, to become applicable on November 15th, 2012, and to a lesser extent by the aeronautical applications supporting AIS/AIM (Annex 15) and MET (Annex 3). This was resuming an earlier WG-M discussion about the subject, which had not been positively concluded due to a lack of coordination. The AFSG was awaiting ACP WG-M progress on the subject.

5.2 The WP highlighted that the introduction of FPL2012 and of other new/amended applications could affect AFTN messages in three areas where the AFTN message format was strictly constrained:1. The maximum line length, set to 69 characters;2. The used character set, limited to a small number of authorised characters

(capital letters only, digits and some punctuation characters) listed in Annex 10, Vol. II, 4.1.2;

3. The maximum message text length, set to 1800 characters, and the correlated overall maximum message length (2100 characters).

5.3 Some of these constraints, and particularly the 69 character line length limitation, were due to the historical specification of AFTN using the telegraphic ITA-2 message format.

5.4 Regarding items 2 (character set) and 3 (text length) above, States were already allowed by Notes included in Annex 10 Vol. II to relax compliance with these constraints under certain conditions, (if their AFTN Com Centres were able to handle messages exceeding these limits). This would apply on a local basis, or be based on bilateral agreements. However, no such statement existed in Annex 10, Vol. II, authorizing States to relax the line length requirement in item 1 above, if it could be accommodated in their message switch. The Amendment proposal aims at inserting a similar Note for this purpose in Annex 10. Furthermore, an equivalent Note is also

document.doc Page10


required to cover messages with a maximum length over 2100 characters, due to a text length exceeding 1800 characters.

5.5 After a few questions regarding the FPL2012 schedule and overall AFTN context in which it applied, the meeting approved the proposed AP. It was further agreed that the Amendment Proposal would be coordinated with ACP members by electronic correspondence without waiting for a WGW meeting, in order to speed up the adoption process. This was made necessary by the FPL 2012 deadline on November 15th.

ACTION ITEM 19-#: Secretary to coordinate approval of AP with ACP members by correspondence.

AGENDA ITEM 3(b) - AMHS and Directory Updates (WP09, WP10, WP11, IP03)

6.1 Jean-Marc Vacher presented then WP9, which included a proposed amendment to Doc 9880, Part II (ATSMHS), resulting directly from WP8. The driving factor was that the AFTN/AMHS Gateway, which was specified in Doc 9880, Part II, aimed at interconnecting AMHS with AFTN. Considering that AMHS does not constrain the contents of messages as strictly as AFTN did, one of the functions of the AFTN/AMHS Gateway was to “protect” the AFTN from AMHS messages exceeding AFTN capabilities, particularly in the three areas addressed by WP8, i.e. line length, character set and message length. However, assuming that the constraints applying to the AFTN node to which the Gateway was connected might be relaxed as per WP8, the “protection” clauses applying to the Gateway specification would also need to be relaxed, so as to avoid that, the Gateway would form a bottleneck between two networks, each of them with higher capabilities.

6.2 The U.S. FAA representative in charge of international AMHS deployment, Hoang Tran, was remotely consulted about the proposed AP. He had participated in earlier meetings where such issues had been addressed (notably AFSG/15 and AFSG/16 meetings) and agreed to the AP. The meeting subsequently approved the proposed AP pending further consultation with Hoang Tran of the FAA. This led to the following action item.

ACTION ITEM: 19-3: Vic Patel to forward WP09 to Hoang Tran for final approval.

6.3 Jean-Marc Vacher presented then WP11 “AMHS – Registration in support of AMHS use of FTBP” and its attachments. The paper aimed at reporting to ACP WG-M about the work performed by the ICAO AFSG in Europe, regarding the conveyance of emerging data types by means of the ATS Message Handling System (AMHS) making use of the File Transfer Body Parts (FTBP). To support this, this paper provided a proposal for the allocation and registration of Object Identifiers (OIDs) in order to indicate the different application data types.

6.4 In the AMHS message using FTBP, a FTBP parameter, i.e. the sub-element named registered-identifier of the element application-reference would take a registered OID value, identifying the type of ATM application program generating the data contained in the FTBP. The OID values would belong to the icao atn-amhs OID Tree, and they had to be unique on a world-wide basis, hence there was a need for a designated body

document.doc Page11


to allocate and register these OIDs. The OID values already declared in Europe were intended to be registered in the ICAO EUR AMHS Manual, and this was proposed as a provisional option for global registration, until ICAO HQ provided or appointed another organisation to do so.

6.5 This proposal required coordination with ACP WG-M: as it relied upon the icao atn-amhs OID Tree registered in the former Doc 9705

Sub-Volume IX, which was yet to be transferred to Doc 9880; to discuss how the registration of the related OIDs should be organised; and in order to inform and enable other ICAO Regions to also make use of this

mechanism, adopting the same OID values and/or their own OID values, at their own choice.

6.6 There was no objection to the paper, and the Panel Secretary took the action to coordinate with the ICAO Paris Office concerning the organisation of the OID registration. The transfer to Doc 9880 was briefly discussed as part of Agenda item 7(g).

ACTION ITEM 19-4: Secretary to coordinate the organisation of the OID registration.

ACTION ITEM 19-#: Jean-Marc Vacher to draft the proposed Doc. 9880 Part IV C, corresponding to the former Doc. 9705 Sub-Volume 9.

6.7 On behalf of AFSG, Jean-Marc Vacher presented IP3, “Information about European Directory Service (EDS)”. This paper aimed at informing ACP/WGM about the work which had been recently performed in Europe, in the area of Directory, by means of a project named “European Directory Service”. This work had been performed by EUROCONTROL, upon invitation by the ICAO AFSG established in the EUR region. In the AFSG/16 meeting, which had taken place end of April 2012, it had been agreed that this information should be provided to ACP/WGM, in relation with the ATN/OSI Document 9880 agenda item.

6.8 The EUROCONTROL Agency had started working on the issue in January 2011 together with the AFSG and had defined within the project four Work Packages:

o WP1 – Analysis of Directory Service Operational Concept, which analysed various options for the directory operation;

o WP2 – Definition of Directory Service Operational Concept (DSOC), which was the main project deliverable;

o WP3 – Validation of Directory Service Operational Concept, which was currently in progress;

o WP4 – Final Report which was still to be developed.

6.9 The AFSG/16 had agreed that the outcome of this work should be reflected in the ICAO EUR AMHS Manual (EUR Doc 020). This was due to the fact that this work was developed primarily in support of AMHS. However, this did not exclude that Directory Services could be used in relation with other ATN or non-ATN applications. The inclusion in ICAO EUR AMHS Manual would be done by means of a summary section, which was provided to WGM to give a hint about the contents of DSOC, and of an Appendix (to be finalised at AFSG/17), for which a draft version was also attached to IP03.

document.doc Page12


6.10 The EDS was specified as a common European facility but was also open to support, to coordinate with and to integrate with States and Organisations outside Europe. The EDS Operational Concept adopted and refined the approach of the ATN Directory as specified by ICAO Doc 9880 Part IV. The architecture of the EDS allowed for centralised management of information, versioning of information as well as periodic and automated distribution of information using X.500 Directory protocols.

6.11 The EDS Operational Concept took into account the existing infrastructure for management and distribution of AMHS address information by the ATS Messaging Management Centre (AMC) and deployed the EDS in three steps, with phased transfer of functionality from AMC to EDS, thereby ensuring a smooth introduction of European directory services and seamless operation of the AMHS.

6.12 Jean-Marc Vacher then presented WP10, “Directory– Amendment Proposal regarding DIT structure (Doc 9880 Part IV)”. This paper aimed at submitting an Amendment Proposal (AP) related to the Detailed Technical Specifications for Directory, included in Doc 9880 Part-IV, and more specifically to the Directory Schema. The proposal primarily aimed at enabling native support of the European Directory Service (EDS) by Doc 9880, without the need for additional schema requirements. Additionally, defects in the DIT structure clauses of the current Edition of Doc 9880 Part IV had been detected during the EDS project, and their correction was proposed in this AP. Once again, it had been agreed in the ICAO AFSG/16 meeting that this AP should be submitted at WG-M/19.

6.13 The Amendment proposal consisted, for the part in support of EDS, in the addition of two relations in the DIT structure, and for the correction of defects, in a number of changes to Table 4-4, together with limited changes to Figures 4-1 and 4-2. Jean-Marc Vacher explained that the proposed amendment would be validated by implementation, as part of EDS Work Package 3. There was no objection from the meeting to the paper and the AP would be included in Doc 9880 pending validation.

AGENDA ITEM 6(b) – SwiftBroadband (WP07) (IP02) -Update of SARPS and Guidance Material

7.1 Gary Colledge presented on the development efforts taken to make the SwiftBroadband service suitable or safety services. In addition, each message sent by SwiftBroadband avionics would also carry GPS-derived location data. It was explained that this could prove useful in Search and Rescue and recovery efforts.

7.2 A key element of this presentation was the fact that the Swift Broadband service could support higher grades of service (and hence higher RCP levels) than current satellite services. As these different grades of service could each result in different work tasks, there was the potential for multiple changes to the SARPS and Guidance Material.

document.doc Page13


7.3 Inmarsat proposed a sequence of tasks for drafting the necessary ICAO documentation, beginning with formation of a subgroup to manage the development, and review of documentation. The group would primarily meet ‘virtually’ using webex and telcons, but could also have face-to-face meetings adjunct to WG-M. This approach was agreed and the secretariat requested that Inmarsat create a list of candidate industry participants to be involved in such a group in order that they could be added to the standard WG-M distribution list and an invitation sent out to determine participation.

7.4 Inmarsat proposed development of a strawman document for both the Technical and Validation Manuals for circulation and review by the group prior to a first virtual meeting in early September.

7.5 Eurocontrol expressed the view that the sequence of the activities may need to be reconsidered (i.e. that the completion of the validation would support the completion of the Technical Manual) and as a result the target of finalised documentation at the end of Q1 2013 might be an ambitious target. Inmarsat responded that since validation material on core functionality, such as Priority and Pre-emption was already available, the plan would be to address both topics within the subgroup in parallel. In this way the validation requirements would enhance the technical description and vice-a versa.

7.6 The group agreed to discuss the relevance of this work to development of new core AMS(R)S SARPs under the next agenda topic IP02 – NEXUS update presented by Eurocontrol.

7.7 Nikos Fistas presented information paper IP2 providing an update into the NEXUS activities. NEXUS is a group formed under the EUROCONTROL NEXSAT SG aiming to develop and propose material to ICAO for an update of the ICAO documents (AMS(R) S SARPS and Technical Manual) to introduce more stringent performance requirements in line with the performance required to support the future ATM concept in the 2020+ timeframe.

7.6 NEXUS is proposing the establishment of the following classes of service for an updated set of satellite SARPS and Guidance Material:

o Class C – capable of supporting current levels of performance. o Class B – capable of supporting initial 4D operationso Class A – capable of supporting full 4D operations (such as Block 3)

7.7 The Nexus group is currently working on defining the Class B requirements. Work for Class A will start later. It was indicated that a proposal (at least for Class B) for discussion in ICAO should be available by early 2013. It was also highlighted that NEXUS is an open group with voluntary contributions and input and participation from all interested parties is particularly invited.

7.8 When the (NEXUS) group was established, it was decided to work a two step approach. The first step is technology independent and consists in developing a consolidated proposal to ICAO for an update of the AMS(R)S SARPs with stringent performance requirements. The second step (following the completion of step 1)

document.doc Page14


would explore the development of a proposal for a new part of the Technical Manual providing the specifications of a system meeting the updated SARPs.

7.9 It was noted that capabilities of the current (commercial) satellite systems such as INMARSAT SSB and Iridium Next should support Class B performance but that a new system may be needed for Class A.

7.10 In the discussion that ensued, it emerged that the work on Class B and C services would have an effect on SARPS as well as the AMS(R)S guidance material. The initial input on this would be provided by the EUROCONTROL NEXUS group.

7.11 Class C services were intended for Oceanic airspace however continental airspace adaptation of the system was being studied (e.g. for support of i4D) and could potentially be targeted for compliance with Class B requirements. Eurocontrol expressed concerns that separate work on SBB component of the technical manual supporting the two classes of service could lead to multiple updates to the Technical Manual. Inmarsat suggested that the Technical Manual could also be developed with placeholders for the Class B requirements that could be added when defined. The secretariat made note of the fact that an annual update of the Technical Manual could be possible to facilitate this evolution of the standard. The group noted that if there was an opportunity to merge to work on the two service classes then this should be done.

7.12 It was agreed that WG-M would form a sub-group to deal with the work on SwiftBroadband. The first task of the group would be to add guidance material on the provision of Class C services via SBB. This would be followed by work on generic SARPS to support Class B services (from SBB and other Satellite services) once input had been received from the NEXUS group. The latter was expected to occur in early 2013.

7.13 The initial work of the sub-group on Class C service would be conducted as follows:

o Gary Colledge to develop a strawman for the new guidance materialo Sub-group members to hold initial meeting via WEBEX, most likely in

September. o Sub-group to consist of Brent Phillips, Liviu Popescu, Stephane Tamalet and

Vaughn Maiolla along with industry members proposed by G. Colledge.

ACTION ITEM 19-5: Gary Colledge to propose membership of sub-group. Secretary to then send out letters of invitation.

AGENDA ITEM 4 – Update on VDL Mode 2 Documents (WP04, WP05)

8.1 Peter Muraca presented WP04 and WP05 via telephone. He advised the meeting that the Data Comm programme had just received final approval. This increases the importance of Doc 9776. The WPs provided an aggregate list of all VDL Mode-2 PDRs (APs) along with an updated version of Doc 9776 which incorporated these. The meeting accepted the changes and then discussed the best way to deal with them.

document.doc Page15


8.2 In this discussion it emerged that not all of the changes had been fully validated. It was explained that agreement on their final validation would be obtained at an AEEC meeting in July. It was agreed that once advice on the final validation had been achieved, the Secretary should do the following:

o Obtain approval for a new edition of Doc. 9776 from ACP members by correspondence.

o Submit the document to the ICAO Editorial Dept. for publication.

AGENDA ITEM 7(a) – Working Group S Progress

9.1 The Secretary reported on progress with WG-S by reviewing the meeting report from their first meeting. The salient points from this were as follows:

o The group was well supported by States and Industry.o The group drafted and agreed to Terms of Reference.o The group drafted an outline for the AeroMACS Guidance Materialo As with other communications media there are unresolved questions as to the

security requirement.

9.2 It was pointed out that the work of WG-S on security would be brought to WG-I for further consideration.

9.3 A question was asked about the timeline for the deliverables of WG-S (SARPS and Technical Manuals), the response was that much of the work could be completed by the end of the year. This was in part due to the fact that much of the technology was COTS and that it had already been validated in the aviation environment.

AGENDA ITEM 7(b) – AN Conf 12 Preparation

10.1 As the participants at WG-M had already briefed on this at WG-I/15 earlier in the week, there was no need to conduct this item.

AGENDA ITEM 7(c) – Collaboration with UASSG

11.1 The Secretary briefed the meeting on the joint activities between the Aeronautical Surveillance Panel (ASP) and the Unmanned Aircraft Systems Study Group (UASSG). In summary:

o The UASSG and ASP co-scheduled their last meetings.o A joint session was held to inform the ASP of the surveillance challenges

faced by the UASSG.o A joint sub-group was formed to develop realistic operational requirements for

UAS (now known as RPA) surveillance. The first step involved the development of a set of constraints and a scope for the work. More ambitious requirements will be dealt with in a later phase.

11.2 The Secretary explained that similar collaboration with the UASSG was a part of the ACP work programme and hence the ACP should pursue this, especially since the initial approach by the ASP was successful.

document.doc Page16


11.3 It was agreed that the next ACP meeting should take place over January 23 – 30, 2012. This would provide three days where both the ACP and UASSG would be sitting and thus provide opportunities for collaborative activities.

AGENDA ITEM 7(d) – SELCAL Code Pool Shortage (WP03)

12.1 Vic Nagowski presented WP03, which began by explaining that Aviation Spectrum Resources Inc. (ASRI) is responsible for administering Selective Calling (SELCAL) codes, maintaining the database of codes, and providing periodic reports on the system status to ICAO. Today there are 10,920 unique SELCAL codes available for assignment and over 30,000 codes assigned today with continued requests for new codes. There is concern that the continued duplication of SELCAL codes may lead to operational errors potentially impacting aviation safety.

12.2 ASRI held a meeting with SELCAL avionics vendors and other interested organizations to review possible alternatives to expanding the SELCAL code pool. As a result of this meeting, a solution was agreed upon for adding 16 new tones (frequencies) to the current system with frequencies being interspersed between the existing 16 tones. The solution provides a large set of possible SELCAL codes (215,760) and also met the goal of not impacting the existing avionics. A nomenclature to identify the 16 new tones was defined by using the upper case alpha characters T through Z and the numbers 1 through 9 inclusive.

12.3 The WG-M members agreed in principle with the ASRI proposal for SELCAL code

pool expansion. The date (September 1, 2014) proposed for implementation seemed optimistic and it was suggested that ASRI conduct a survey of the ANSPs to determine an acceptable implementation date. This was considered important as an unrealistic date could result in proposals being reject by the Air Navigation Commission. An assessment by ANSPs on the impact on flight plan systems accepting the new SELCAL codes should also be considered. This resulted in the following action items:

ACTION ITEM 19-6: The Secretary to enquire about the affects of the SELCAL code pool expansion would have on the FPL2012 and on Flight Data Processing Systems.

ACTION ITEM 19-7: ASRI (Vic Nagowski) to conduct a survey of Oceanic ANSPs to determine an acceptable date for implementation.

AGENDA ITEM 7(f) – LINK 2000 Update (IP05)

12.1 Liviu Popescu (EUROCONTROL) presented WP15 an update of the current status of the LINK 2000+ activities, on behalf of Mr Martin Adnams EUROCONTROL Link2000+ Programme Manager. The presentation covered programme objectives, implementation strategy and roadmaps, regulatory framework and DLS Central Reporting Office processes.

12.2 Detailed information is available on the Link2000+ website:http://www.eurocontrol.int/link2000

document.doc Page17


12.3 Regarding EC Regulation No. 29/2009 - DLS Implementing Rule key dates were reminded as follows:

o 1 January 2011 – After this date all new aircraft operating above FL 285 must be delivered with a compliant system.

o 7 February 2013 – By this date all LINK Region ANSPs must have implemented an operational compliant system.

o 7 February 2015 – By this date all aircraft operating above FL 285 must have been retrofitted with a compliant system.

o 7 February 2015 – By this date all EU Region ANSPs must have implemented an operational compliant system.

12.4 Incentives were supported for pioneering users through the EC Trans-European Transport Network Executive Agency (TENT-EA) European Economic Recovery Plan (EERP) where EUROCONTROL was requested to bid on behalf of the Airspace Users. About 500 aircraft are in the process of being equipped through the incentive scheme, however not all of the Grant money will be used. Currently, no more applications will be accepted.

12.5 The Central Reporting Office (DLS-CRO) role within the EUROCONTROL Directorate Network Management, is for central monitoring, analysis and investigation of DLS operational problems on the application, network and link layers. Following problem analysis and resolution, the CRO will coordinate with suppliers, standardization bodies and implementers.

12.6 Questions following the presentations were related to FANS accommodation and usage statistics, availability of reference documents for the programme, relations with Oceanic operations using FANS, the use of ground networks to support the deployment. It was explained that FANS equipped aircraft for a/c with individual airworthiness certificates before 01/01/2014, equipped with FANS ED-100, ED-100A certified data link equipment are one of the categories for exemption. It was further explained that the European Commission will provide the ultimate acceptance for any exception request. Statistics from DLS–CRO are available on the Link 2000+ website. If more detailed information is needed Link Programme manager shall be contacted. It was reminded that all Reference Documents are available on the Link 2000+ website. Ground IP networks (e.g. PENS) could be used to support DLS deployment.

AGENDA ITEM 7(g) – Future of Doc 9880

14.1 The Secretary advised the meeting of the current status of Doc 9880:o Edition 1 containing Parts 1-4, was published in 2010.o An Amendment to provide material for Part 3 was approved in 2011.o Edition 2 will be published when material on the following has been

incorporated into the document.o Security provisionso Registration provisions (previously in Doc 9705, sub-vol. 9)o Directory Serviceso FIS and ADS-C

document.doc Page18


o Changes needed for consistency with other ICAO and industry documents.

ACTION ITEM 19-#: Secretary to provide WORD version of Doc 9880 to assist with the document editing process.

14.2 The meeting was advised that once the next edition had been prepare, publication would take approximately twelve months. During that period the draft edition would be posted on ICAO-Net as an unedited advance copy in order to be available to users.

AGENDA ITEM 2 – Configuration Control Board (CCB) Process (IP04)

15.1 The Secretary presented IP04 which contained the CCB process developed by the ATN Panel. Key points from this were:

o The process was developed to deal with defects and would need to be modified to support new development work as well.

o It contained an elaborate voting process to resolve issues.o It relied on groups of subject matter experts to handle specific issues.o It relied on e-mail correspondence based on three types of mailing lists.

15.2 The above issues were discussed at length. In short it was agreed that since WG-M was a smaller group, the voting process would not be needed and that decisions should be arrived at through consensus. There could be a problem with the nomination of individual subject matter experts, due to turnover and other responsibilities. In addition to e-mail, current methods such as web-sites, WEBEX and ticket management systems could be used for coordination. This resulted in the following Action Item:

ACTION ITEM 19-8: Secretary to modify the CCB process of IP04 to reflect the decisions made at WG-M/19.

15.3 It was further agreed that a CCB would not be needed until the first draft of Doc. 9880 Edition 2 was prepared. Hence it was agreed that the CCB process would not be invoked until then.

AGENDA ITEM 10; NEXT MEETING

16.1 This was covered under Agenda Item 7 (c). The agreement was to hold the next meeting in Montreal from Jan 23rd to Jan 30th in conjunction with the next meeting of WG-1. WG-M would therefore meet from Jan 23 – 25 and WG-I would meet from Jan 28-30. These dates were chosen to allow joint activities with the UASSG.

document.doc Page19


MEETING CLOSE

17.1 In closing the meeting, the rapporteur, Brent Phillips thanked the hosts ROMATSA for the providing the venue and facilities for the meeting and added a special thanks for the exceptional hospitality extended to the group.

In particular, thanks were expressed to Cosmin Dumitrescu for arranging technical visits to the ROMATSA ATC Centre, which the group found particularly interesting. The group also took special note of the pioneering efforts made by ROMATSA in implementing facilities using the Internet Protocol Suite. The group felt that they could benefit in the future from this experience.

document.doc Page20


APPENDIX A - ACP WGI AGENDA

AERONAUTICAL COMMUNICATION PANEL

FIFTEENTH MEETING OF WORKING GROUP - IBucharest, Romania 28 – 30 May 2012

Proposed Agenda

WG-I Proposed Agenda:

1. Meeting Organisational Issues

2. Approval of the Agenda & Review of WG-I/14 Meeting Report

3. Review of Action Items and Items for Follow-Up.

4. IPv6 implementation papers (Mobile and Fix)

5. Regional IP implementations (need input from ICAO regional secretariats)

6. IPS implementation guidance development

6.1. IPv6 Addressing

6.2. IPV4- IPV6 transition

6.3. Security - Air-Ground Security Standard – Proposed approach

6.4. DNS Naming

7. Any Other Business

7.1. ANC-12 Preparation Discussion

7.1.1. Roadmaps and Supporting IP

7.2. Enterprise Security Capabilities

7.3. SWIM

8. Next meeting

document.doc Page21

APPENDIX C LIST OF ATTENDEES

ACP WGI-14 – Montreal, Canada: 18th – 20th July 2011

LIST OF ATTENDEES

NAME ORGANIZATION NAME

E-MAIL

Liviu Popescu EUROCONTROLRapporteur

[email protected]

Maiolla, Vaughn ICAOPanel Secretary

[email protected]

Cosmin Dumitrescu ROMATSA [email protected] Phillips FAA [email protected] Frauche DECEA (Brazil)Jacky Pouzet EUROCONTROL [email protected] VacherPierre Vic Patel FAA [email protected] Tamelet AIRBUSJohannes De Haan EUROCONTROLMarc Brochard (remote only)

EUROCONTROL

Mike Olive Honeywell [email protected]

of 24

mailto:[email protected]

APPENDIX D – TABLE OF ACTION ITEMS AND OUTCOMES

Action Item

Description Status

13-8 ICAO Secretariat will work to obtain IPV6 address blocks for the Regions.

OPEN – In progress.

14-1: Secretary to Refer Action Item 13-07 to WG-M and Part 2B to read Part 4B.

Secretary

14-2: Secretary to modify Doc 9896 Rev 19 to include the proposed modifications to ED-137 given in WPs 6 and 7 explaining that these requirements are limited to the FAA. This is expected to be ready for approval for publication as Edition 2 within two weeks.

Secretary

14-3: Secretary to take appendices A and B from Section 5 of the report of the Working Group of the Whole and make these stand-alone documents. These are to be clearly identified and placed in the general repository of the ACP web-site.

Secretary

14-4: Secretariat draft State Letter asking for (i) support from personnel with IPS skills and (ii) an extension to the schedule for the work programe based on the various reasons given above. In order to be effective State Letter must ask for experts to be nominated by name with details of expertise.

Secretary

14-5: ICAO to develop a justification for a /16 address block and make an application to ARIN or IANA based on expediency.

Secretary

14-6: Hoang Tranh to draft guidance material for Doc 9896 on IPV4-IPV6 transition.

Hoang Tranh

14-7: Robert Witzen to draft a paper for the ACP WGW recommending a SARPS amendment changing the OSI Protocols to recommendations.

Robert Witzen

14- 8: ICAO to apply for new TLD and draft appropriate guidance material on the allocation of lower level domain names.

ICAO

14-9: Secretary to capture some justifications on paper and circulate to WG-I members. Once done, the Secretary to prepare a paper seeking the ACP WGW to request the ANC to approve the formation of a Task Force.

Secretary

of 24

Items for Follow-Up at WG-I/14

Item Description Status

14-1: WG-I to consider architecture for DNS Network and Security.

On-going

14-2: ACP to consider the development of a suitable architecture to support SWIM. (This is subject to resolution of SWIM related actions from WG-I/15)

On-going

15-1: Information from ROMATSA on IP network implementation and management covered in IP02 under Agenda Item 5 to be taken into account when developing guidance material on ATN/IPS implementation

On-going

15-2 Information from EUROCONTROL in SDDS given in IP03 under agenda item 4 5 to be taken into account when developing guidance material on ATN/IPS implementation

On-going

of 24