WG I Meeting Report

Document Sample
WG I Meeting Report Powered By Docstoc
					                                                      ACP-WGM 14-REPORT

                                                              02 June 2009


         WG M – Maintenance – 14th Meeting

       Brussels, Belgium , 2nd June– 5th June 2009

        DRAFT - Report of ACP WGM-14 Meeting

       Presented by the Rapporteur (Brent Phillips)


 This document is the DRAFT ACP WGM-14 Meeting Report.
                                                                                                  Report of ACP, WG-M/14 Meeting
                                                                                                            (Brussels, 2-5 June 2008)

                                                 TABLE OF CONTENTS

      1.      OPENING OF MEETING ................................................................................................................. 3


3.    AGENDA ITEM 2: ATN/OSI DOCUMENT 9880 UPDATE STATUS ................................................... 4

4.    AGENDA 2(B): SECURITY UPDATES FOR DOC. 9705........................................................................ 4

      DIRECTORY UPDATES. ........................................................................................................................... 7

6.    AGENDA ITEM 2(D): PM-FIS AND PM-ADS-C STATUS..................................................................... 8

7.   AGENDA ITEM 3(D): REPORT OF WG-I (VOIP STANDARDS) ........................................................ 9

8.   AGENDA ITEM 4: MAINTENANCE OF VDL MODE-2 DOCUMENTS ............................................. 9

     TECHNICAL DOCUMENTS................................................................................................................... 10

10. AGENDA ITEM 8: OTHER BUSINESS .................................................................................................. 11

11. AGENDA ITEM 9: NEXT MEETING ...................................................................................................... 12

12. APPENDIX 1 – LIST OF ATTENDEES .................................................................................................. 13

13. APPENDIX 2 – PROPOSED AGENDA AND SCHEDULE .................................................................... 14

14. APPENDIX 3 – LIST OF ACTION ITEMS .............................................................................................. 16

15. APPENDIX 4 - STATUS OF DOCUMENT 9880 ..................................................................................... 17


604d6dd4-701e-4825-8184-b788d4a3e1fd.doc                                                                                                 Page2
                                                              Report of ACP, WG-M/14 Meeting
                                                                        (Brussels, 2-5 June 2008)


1.1    The Working Group Rapporteur, Brent Phillips opened the 14th meeting of WG-M.
Following the introduction of the meeting participants, Mr Jacky Pouzet, the Data
Communications Lead for EUROCONTROL, provided welcoming remarks for the meeting.

1.2    This was followed by a review of the meeting agenda and schedule, following which it
was approved by the meeting. This was necessary as the sequence of items was adjusted to
accommodate participants availability. It was noted that papers had not been submitted for all
agenda items and hence not all items would be covered. The Agenda and Attendance List are


2.1     Mr Robert Morgenstern (MITRE Corporation) presented IP1 which provided an
overview of the current status of the FAA’s Data Communication program. The presentation
included an overview of the program organization and then proceeded to note the completion
of Initial Investment Decision with work proceeding on the Final Investment Decision which
is needed before contracts can be awarded. Near-term activities include support of the
standards development in SC214/WG78, specification development in support of the
upcoming acquisitions and human factors studies to validate requirements. IP1 discussed the
program schedules for the Data Communications Network Service (DCNS) and automation
components of the DC program. The information paper included the primary activities of the
FAA for this program for the next 2 fiscal years, as well as an overview of planning testing
and validation activities.

2.2      Mr Soren Dissing gave a presentation on the Status of the LINK 2000+ programme
(IP8). This discussion also provided details on the rational for the Datalink Implementing
Rule in Europe. Following the presentation, the meeting discussed the issue of providing
adequate VDL Mode 2 channels in time for this. It was noted that weather graphic
applications were not included in either LINK 2000+, possibly because these are not safety-
critical. It was noted that the inclusion of weather graphic application would result in a
significant increase to the channel loading.

2.3     Mr. Brent Phillips presented IP3, "5GHz Airport Surface Mobile Wireless
Communications System" to provide an update on the system development and
standardization activities. This work is based on a recommendation from the Future
Communications Study and endorsed by ICAO. In particular, ICAO recommended the
development of a new system based on the IEEE 802.16e standards to support the
communications requirements on the airport surface. The specific actions to be carried out
include the development of an aviation specific standard, evaluation and validation of the
standard, proposal of a channelization methodology and completion of a business
case analysis. The WRC-07 removed restrictions from the existing MLS-band (5091-
5150MHz) which will allow for the operation of an AM(R)S services in this band. This will
allow ICAO to develop international standards for an airport mobile surface wireless
communications network. There is an action to consider adding an AM(R)S allocation in the
5000-5030 MHz band at WRC-11. It was noted by John Mettrop that the applications
currently being put forth to justify this additional allocation are mainly for fixed assets and

604d6dd4-701e-4825-8184-b788d4a3e1fd.doc                                                Page3
                                                              Report of ACP, WG-M/14 Meeting
                                                                        (Brussels, 2-5 June 2008)

that some frequency authorities currently do not support the request in this case. It was noted
that a contract has been awarded by the FAA to progress the development and validation of
the C-Band system. A request has also been put forth to RTCA for the initiation of a
standardization effort. The meeting representative from EUROCONTROL noted that a
similar request was put forth and approved by EUROCAE last week.


3.1     Tony Kerr presented WP-06 proposing text for Doc 9880 IV(c), (identifier
registration) this was based on Doc. 9705 Sub-Vol IX, plus some additional identifiers that
had been identified during the LINK 2000+ validation activity. The meeting agreed to review
the proposed text and incorporate it into Doc. 9880 if no further comments. The Secretary
took an action to post Doc 9880 IV(c) on the web-site following a suitable review period.

ACTION Item #1: Secretary to post Doc. 9880 IV (c) following a suitable review period.

3.2      Danny Van Roosbroek presented Flimsy 1, which provided a table on the current
status of the various parts/sections of Doc. 9880. It was pointed out that the section on ICS,
Chapter 3 of Part III was yet to be published on ICAO-NET. The secretary agreed to take care
of this. Flimsy 1 is also provided in an appendix to this report.


4.1     Tom McParland presented the FAA’s Information Paper 05, “Doc 9880 Part IV-B
based on Doc 9705”. This IP presents a set of recommended changes that should be made to
Doc 9705 if a decision is made to base the security section of Doc 9880 on the Doc 9705
approach. The Doc 9705 approach to security establishes keys through an extension to
Context Management messages. Messages are protected by applying a HMAC tag within the
Upper Layer Communications Service. It was noted that the Doc 9705 approach was in
contrast to other approaches which have been considered, such as adapting the IKEv2
approach used in Doc 9896 or other adaptations of Internet Protocol Suite security techniques.
It was also noted the Doc 9705 approach was always written such that the use of security was
optional. It was also noted that other parts which have already been brought into Doc 9880
invoke security as defined in Doc 9705 SV VIII. Specifically, the ULCS, CM, and CPDLC
specifications in Doc 9880 invoke the SSO through ULCS extensions. Additionally AMHS
invokes security as defined in Doc 9705 SV VIII.

4.2     Assuming Doc 9705 SV VIII would be brought into Doc 9880 Part IV-b, the paper
recommends three general changes. The first is to permit implementation of air-ground
security with a shared aircraft key. The result of using a shared key, for example, by all
aircraft of a particular airline, would be that a full Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) with
certificates for individual aircraft would not be necessary. Since individual aircraft are not
authenticated this mode of operation is effectively one-way authentication. There was a
question on compatibility with the shared key operation. It was noted that the aircraft
implementation would not change. The change would be to the Ground-based Context
Management application which would use a shared key from some type of local storage
instead of retrieving individual aircraft certificates from a PKI directory service.

604d6dd4-701e-4825-8184-b788d4a3e1fd.doc                                                Page4
                                                             Report of ACP, WG-M/14 Meeting
                                                                       (Brussels, 2-5 June 2008)

4.3     The second recommended change is to adapt the specification to reflect the deletion of
IDRP air-ground security. It was noted that corresponding changes have already been made
to the Internet Communications Service (ICS) which has been brought forward to Doc 9880.

4.4     The third recommended change was to use a single set of domain parameters for the
elliptic curve cryptography. In Doc 9705 there were two sets of elliptic curve domain
parameters. One set was termed “standard strength” which was to be used for signing
messages and for key agreement by applications. The other set was termed “CA strength”
which was to be used by Certificate Authorities (CAs) for signing digital certificates. Since
the original publication of Doc 9705 Edition 3, the industry has determined that the standard
strength parameters do not provide adequate security beyond 2010. The CA strength
parameters, however, are considered adequate to at least 2030. Therefore the Doc 9880
version of ATN security, specifies that applications also use the CA strength parameters for
signing and key agreement.         To accommodate the new domain parameters this
recommendation also changes the cryptographic hash function from SHA-1, which as a 160-
bit hash, to SHA-256 which has a 256-bit hash. There was a question on the reference for
SHA-256 which is FIPS 180-2. It was noted that although SHA-1 was defined in an ISO/IEC
standard, SHA-256 is not. Furthermore, the FIPS reference is commonly used in the IETF by
RFCs which specify the use of SHA-256.

4.5     Tom McParland then presented the FAA’s IP 06 which contained an updated
CONOPS for air-ground security incorporating the three recommended changes in IP 05. IP
06 was not reviewed in detail. Rather there was a summary discussion on the PKI heirarchy
(figure 1) and an overview of ATN security operation (figure 2 and figure 3). The PKI
heirarchy was adjusted to reflect that IDRP air-ground security has been deleted. Figure 3
was added to show shared aircraft key operation.

4.6     After IP05 and IP06 were presented the chairman solicited the group’s response to the
approach of moving the Doc 9705 air-ground security solution to Doc 9880. Danny Van
Roosbroek stated that if this approach had been presented last November, he would not have
had issues that he previously raised with using the IKEv2 approach and it would have been
part of the normal transfer of material from Doc 9705 to Doc 9880. He believes that the
IKEv2 approach was not maintenance of documents but rather development of new
functionality and thus out of scope for WG M. Danny stated that the approach of moving the
Doc 9705 air-ground security solution to Doc 9880 with the recommended changes fits into
the normal WG M maintenance process and therefore he would not object to it.

4.7    The chairman asked if Eurocontrol planned to use air-ground security. Danny
responded that it was not required in Link 2000+ ; however, for SESAR it had not yet been
decided. The US reported that it has been decided that air-ground security with one-way
authentication was required for Segment 2 and therefore the specification was needed soon.
However, the approach (Doc 9705, IKEv2, or other) has not yet been decided internally. It is
expected that this will be decided by the end of July with consideration given to feedback
from WG-M.

4.8    Michael Olive, Honeywell, presented an information paper (IP07) titled “ACARS
Message Security (AMS) as a Vehicle for Validation of ICAO Doc. 9880 Part IV-B Security
Requirements.” Given that proposed text for Doc. 9880 Part IV-B updates and replaces Doc.
9705 Sub-volume VIII (as presented in information paper 5), the purpose of this information

604d6dd4-701e-4825-8184-b788d4a3e1fd.doc                                               Page5
                                                            Report of ACP, WG-M/14 Meeting
                                                                      (Brussels, 2-5 June 2008)

paper is to discuss how AMS can be leveraged to show that proposed technical security
provisions in Doc. 9880 Part IV-B have been validated in a representative environment.

4.9     As background, AMS is a security application that permits secure, authenticated
exchange of ACARS datalink messages between aircraft and ground systems. AMS is based
on the security framework, PKI, and cryptographic algorithms specified in Doc. 9705 Sub-
Volume VIII plus the modifications proposed in Doc. 9880 Part IV-B. AMS technical
provisions are documented in ARINC Specification 823, which is an industry standard
developed by the AEEC Datalink Security sub-committee. In addition, AMS certificate
profiles, which are based on ICAO Doc. 9705 Sub-volume VIII, are document in ATA
Specification 42, which is an industry standard developed by the Air Transport Association
(ATA) Digital Security Working Group (DSWG). A high-level summary comparison shows
a high-degree of commonality between AMS and proposed Doc. 9880 Part IV-B, with the
following minor exceptions:

       For authentication, both AMS and ATN/OSI using a 32-bit HMAC tag; however, AMS
       includes negotiation of a configurable MAC length, which was included in the AMS
       specification at the request of AIRBUS. AMS includes confidentiality services to
       protect airline-proprietary communications; however, confidentiality is not identified
       as required ATN service. It was noted that the AMS confidentiality scheme is based
       on a recommendations in a working paper developed by the ICAO ATN Panel.

       For digital certificates, AMS uses an entity naming convention that is different from
       ATN/OSI; however, other aspects of the certificate profile are the consistent with the
       profile proposed for ATN/OSI.

4.10 With regard to AMS implementation, Honeywell has developed an ARINC
Specification 823 compliant implementation known as Secure ACARS. Honeywell has
ported its AMS implementation to MK-II CMU avionics and a production-ready ground
system, validated the implementation via a successful over-the-air flight demonstration and
ground system stress test, and used the implementation as the baseline for generation of
extensive test vectors included in ARINC Specification 823. Although ARINC Speciation
823 does not require that implementations of AMS use the ATN System Security Object
(SSO), Honeywell’s implementation is based on the ATN SSO as originally described in Doc.
9705 Sub-volume VIII. As a consequence of these activities, Mr. Olive suggested that the
implementation and demonstration of AMS provides a high degree of confidence that an
ATN/OSI-based security solution is realizable given the challenges associated with: avionics
resource constraints, security protocol operation in a bandwidth-constrained communications
environment (e.g., VHF), and security protocol failure scenarios (e.g., how to respond to
failures introduced by the communications link). In response to a question regarding security
overhead, Mr. Olive indicated that AMS experienced a security overhead of 8-9%; however,
the application of data compression techniques achieves greater than 30% compression, which
more than compensates for the security overhead.

4.11 In conclusion, the WG-M participants were invited to consider the availability of the
AMS implementation, test environment, validation documents, and industry standards as a
means to show that proposed technical security provisions in Doc. 9880 Part IV-B have been
validated in a representative environment.

604d6dd4-701e-4825-8184-b788d4a3e1fd.doc                                              Page6
                                                                        Report of ACP, WG-M/14 Meeting
                                                                                  (Brussels, 2-5 June 2008)


5.1     Mr Jean-Marc Vacher presented WP5. This paper provided proposed changes to the
AMHS standard as well as a few additions to the suggested procedure for the handling of such
changes in the future. The proposed changes were the result of shortcomings identified during
validation testing.

5.2    The proposed changes were provisionally accepted by WG-M. Final acceptance would
occur following a two week review period which would follow the release of the final report.

5.3     The procedure for handling future changes proposed by Mr Vacher was as follows:

        (a)      a topic should be created on the ACP website to store APs, in a way that would
                 be easy to locate by implementers;

        (b)      it might be useful to define a means to inform interested parties of the
                 existence of APs. An example of such means could be a participants’ list;

        (c)      it is assumed that APs become applicable at the moment of their publication,
                 according to step (vi) of the procedure1. However the way in which APs are
                 published in not defined in the procedure. It could be useful to introduce the
                 notion that an AP can be published “alone” to avoid editing a full Manual for
                 each AP;

        (d)      it is also necessary that Industry and ANSPs that are implementing systems
                 and applications based on the Manuals, typically in the present case AMHS
                 systems, be informed about the publication of the APs and/or of the revised
                 Manuals. This aspect is not addressed in the procedure;

        (e)      to relieve ICAO from significant editorial processing, a possible way to handle
                 these issues could be to use the WGM status (e.g. Proposed, Pending,
                 Approved, Rejected) to the APs posted on the ACP web site, so that interested
                 parties know that APs are to be implemented when they reach the status
                 Approved. If needed, an additional status (e.g. Adopted) could be added to
                 reflect the ICAO ACP (or ANC) decision when needed. In this way, the ACP
                 website could serve as the focal point for all parties in this procedure. Each
                 Coordinator could provide the ACP Secretariat with the appropriate files for
                 this purpose.

5.4    In the ensuing discussion it was pointed out that in the past, a Configuration Control
Board (CCB) comprised of certain group members would handle such amendments. The CCB
has since disbanded however the need to review and approve amendments still exists. Robert
Morgenstern mentioned that the CCB amendment form was still in use and would lend itself
to Jean-Marc proposed procedure. It was recognized by the group that Jean-Marc’s proposed
procedure offered a viable alternative to the re-formation of a CCB and would require fewer

 Provided in an Appendix to this report. Originally given in Annex 6 to the report of the 12th Meeting of WG-

604d6dd4-701e-4825-8184-b788d4a3e1fd.doc                                                             Page7
                                                              Report of ACP, WG-M/14 Meeting
                                                                        (Brussels, 2-5 June 2008)

resources. The meeting tentatively agreed to the approach however the meeting secretary
stated that he would need to ensure that this conforms with expected procedures. The
secretary took an action to look into this. The secretary also took an action item to modify the
procedure to reflect the above.

ACTION ITEM #2: Secretary to look into feasibility of the proposed procedure for the
handling of Amendment Proposals.

ACTION ITEM #3: Secretary to modify existing procedure to reflect new changes.

5.5     Mr Tony Kerr presented WP7. This paper provided proposed changes to the Doc 9880
AMHS standard in reference to the use of IPS. The paper proposed referencing elements in
Doc 9896 rather than specifying using TCP with RFC 1006 or RFC2126. Tom McParland
noted that Asia/Pac and CAR/SAM will initially use IPV4 in their regional backbone
networks and therefore suggested that the option for the use of IPV4 be maintained as a third
option in section of the AP. Jean-Marc Vacher thought that the change proposed by
Tom McParland was reasonable in view of on-going implementations. The AP would follow
the standard review process.


6.1     Danny Van Roosbroek presented WP3. The paper describes the status of the technical
specifications for ADS-C and FIS Applications and explores the options for the publication of
this material. The specifications include an application message integrity check mechanism
similar to CPDLC, i.e. "protected mode", and achieve a clean split between operational
messages and the underlying communications mechanism. The working paper identified 3
publication scenarios:

       #1:     Publication of FIS and ADS-C within Doc 9880 Part I, along with CM and

       #2:     Publication of FIS and ADS-C as RTCA DO / EUROCAE ED documents;

       #3:     Publication of all applications (CPDLC, FIS and ADS-C) as RTCA DO/
               EUROCAE ED documents.

6.2     Jean-Marc Vacher stated that the selection of the preferred scenario will require the
involvement of the Panel members and therefore a review period for Panel Members should
be defined, after the WG-M recommendation is established, prior to formal agreement.
The ICAO secretary reported that at the last ICAO Assembly, the strategy to rely on industry
committees for the development of detailed specifications was confirmed. From the ICAO
perspective, scenario #3 (ICAO to make reference to RTCA/EUROCAE material for CPDLC,
FIS, ADS-C applications) was the preferred approach. Brent Phillips confirmed that the US
was also favouring the scenario 3 approach. The group was in general agreement that Option
3 was to be recommended for consideration by the ACP members.

6.3    It was also noted that the European Link 2000+ programme, and the EUROCAE
Interop document (ED-110B) both currently refer to Doc 9705 Ed 2 plus PDRs rather than

604d6dd4-701e-4825-8184-b788d4a3e1fd.doc                                                Page8
                                                            Report of ACP, WG-M/14 Meeting
                                                                      (Brussels, 2-5 June 2008)

Doc 9880 Part 1, so moving CPDLC from Doc 9880 would not cause any traceability issues
at this time.

6.4     The Secretary mentioned that a similar discussion needs to start in the OPLINK Panel,
regarding the publication coordination of its material to the RTCA SC214/EUROCAE WG 78
document products. ICAO, RTCA and EUROCAE are also engaged in high-level discussions
to come to an agreement between the different organisations on the use of industry
specifications. Jean-Marc Vacher considered that such an agreement should be a pre-requisite
to the adoption of Scenarios 2 and 3. The ICAO Secretary took an action to coordinate the
WG-M discussion with the Oplink Panel and keep the group informed of the ICAO policy on
the matter. An action was agreed for all to consult with their Panel members in a timely
fashion to enable a WG-M decision on the preferred approach.

ACTION ITEM #4: Secretary to advise the Oplink panel of the WG-M discussion on the
handling of applications and inform the group on ICAO policy on this matter.
ACTION ITEM #5: All WG-M members to consult their panel members to canvas advise in
order for WG-M to make a decision on the handling of applications in the manuals.


7.1    Mr. Liviu Popescu (EUROCONTROL) presented IP4, a PowerPoint presentation of
the current status of work done in WG-I on VOIP. This work drew upon the EUROCAE
documents; ED-136, ED-137, and ED-138. WG-I had decided that some material is globally
applicable and would be used to produce new sections of the technical manual and guidance
material (Document 9896). Various members of WG-I took actions items to review this
material to determine suitability for their own regions. The regions covered were Asia-Pac,
Europe and the US.

7.2   IP4 also dealt with the overall strategic context for VoIP and the status and structure
of EUROCAE VoIP specification.

7.3    Questions were asked about the planned schedule of work for WG-I and the foreseen
consultation process. Mr. Popescu detailed the agreed steps in WG-I as follows: development
of second edition of the ATN/IPS Manual to include VoIP Services by referencing
EUROCAE WG-67 documents by end of June, draft version 17 for comments due Sept 15
and consolidation of the second edition comments by Oct 15.


8.1   Mr Robert Morgenstern presented WP4 which contained an amendment proposal from
the AEEC DLK Systems subcommittee based on initial vendor validation of the material in
Supplement 5 to AEEC 631. An inconsistency was identified in the accompanying
parameters to the Frequency Support XID for the Ground Requested, Air-initiated handoff
XID. The consensus from the AEEC SC was to delete the FSL parameter from the GRAIHO
XID, as it seemed wasteful to pass an aircraft a list of alternate frequencies when you are

604d6dd4-701e-4825-8184-b788d4a3e1fd.doc                                              Page9
                                                             Report of ACP, WG-M/14 Meeting
                                                                       (Brussels, 2-5 June 2008)

requesting the avionics retune to another ground station. The group reviewed the AP without

8.2    Mr Patrick Delhaise of EUROCONTROL made a proposal to the meeting for the
future handling of amendment proposals. This proposal was to temporarily replace the
technical content from the VDL Guidance Material (Doc. 9776) with a reference to the
current revision of AEEC Document 631. The reason for this is, that VDL Mode-2 is
undergoing extensive field evaluation the results of which, are generating regular proposals
for amendment. Given this state of flux, it was felt that the AEEC group could respond to
these more dynamically and hence their document would reflect the current state of
development better than the ICAO Guidance Material. Once the standard had stabilised the
technical content could then be restored to the ICAO VDL Guidance Material.

8.3    In response to this the Secretary stated that the need for a means to adequately handle
amendment proposals for developmental systems seemed to be a recurring issue during this
meeting. The EUROCONTROL proposal was another solution to this and would certainly be
given consideration. Such consideration would need to consider, a) the other similar proposal
made and also b) its compliance with ICAO procedures


9.2     The meetings attention was drawn to an issue with the use of the Iridium Satellite
system for AMS(R)S. The UK radio regulator had questioned how Iridium could offer an
AMS(R)S service given that they had not completed the requisite ITU co-ordination in
accordance with article 9.21 of the Radio Regulations. A working paper (WP16) on this issue
had been presented at the recent WG-F meeting drawing the attention of spectrum experts to
the issue.

9.3     The following discussion within WG-F, which included representatives of Iridium,
resulted in WG-F agreeing that any satellite provision of safety related services can only be
made by using AMS(R)S spectrum in a primary allocation (see paragraph 9.2 of the WG-F 20
report) which is not the case for the IRIDIUM system. Therefore the statement made in the
section 5.2.1 of the AMS(R)S manual that co-ordination has been complete is not accurate.
WG-F had tasked John Mettrop with investigating the issue further and providing Iridium
with further details on what needed to be done to achieve the relevant ITU co-ordination.
WG-M endorsed this action and asked that they be keep informed of any progress.

ACTION ITEM #6: John Mettrop to keep WG-M up to date on developments regarding the
IRIDIUM Spectrum issue in UK regulated territory.

604d6dd4-701e-4825-8184-b788d4a3e1fd.doc                                               Page10
                                                              Report of ACP, WG-M/14 Meeting
                                                                        (Brussels, 2-5 June 2008)


10.1      Use of 121.5 MHz Guard Channels

Under agenda item 8, the meeting discussed a contribution with respect to the use of the 121.5
MHz guard channels for the provision of air traffic control services. The paper highlights that
the rationale for excluding the use frequencies between 121.4 and 121.6 MHz was to protect
the COSPAS-SARSAT system that provided monitoring of the emergency frequency 121.5
MHz. Since the COSPAS-SARSAT service on 121.5 MHz had now been decommissioned it
was viable and prudent to use the outer 4 frequencies (121.425, 121.450, 121.550 & 121.575
MHz) to ease the congestion in the VHF communications in certain regions of the world. The
meeting noted the proposal and agreed to take the necessary action to implement this
(including possible changes to Annex 10, Vol. V) however it would consult with WG-F
before taking any further action.

ACTION ITEM #7: Secretary to consult with WG-F before taking on action on changes to
A10 VolV.

10.2      Inconsistencies In SARPs

Under agenda item 8 John Mettrop from the UK CAA brought the meetings attention to the
fact that the UK had recently been audited by ICAO. During the preparation for that audit the
CAA had undertaken a paragraph by paragraph review of the Annexes of the Convention on
International Civil Aviation and that a number of inconsistencies, ambiguities and out of date
provisions had been identified. These issues varied from trivial issues such as Annex 10,
Volume V, Attachment A, para 2.1 referring to ITU-R curves for 100 MHz but then Figures
A-8 to A-15 refer to 127 MHz to whether SARPs for VDL Modes 3 & 4 should be maintained
in Annex 10 or held in abeyance. The meeting was informed that it was the intention of the
UK CAA to submit working papers at future meetings of WG-M to address these issues and
welcomed the initative.

10.3      Frequency Congestion

The Rapporteur then raised the issue of Frequency Congestion with the group. The following
technical enablers were identified to aid in solving the frequency congestion :

      -   L-band terrestrial communications system.
      -   C-band airport (surface) communication system.

It was understood that this subject was outside of the scope of the group however, since there
was no active working group dealing with these issues it was considered worthwhile for this
group to give some consideration to these – if genuine needs were identified these could be
brought up at the appropriate forum.

The secretary raised the point that the expected frequency congestion in Europe could be a
driver for this work. The working group members were not able to provide any guidance on
the severity of this issue, as the discussion was not planned as part of the main agenda. In

604d6dd4-701e-4825-8184-b788d4a3e1fd.doc                                                Page11
                                                             Report of ACP, WG-M/14 Meeting
                                                                       (Brussels, 2-5 June 2008)

order to inform the group at a future meeting, the Secretary undertook to contact the relevant
experts within Eurocontrol to find out more on this and report to the group. John Mettrop as
Chair of the FMG also undertook to clarify the situation within the FMG and if necessary
bring this to the attention of the EANPG. He added that this could be completed by the end of


12.1 The Secretary opened discussion on this item by outlining the proposal from WG-I to
hold consecutive or even concurrent meetings with WG-M. He went on to say that the next
WG-I meeting was planned for October.

12.2 The Secretary then explained the results of his attempts to have a meeting held in
Asia. The two prospective locations were Bangkok and Tokyo. The ACP member for Japan
had advised that he would need earlier notice for budgeting purposes, hence a 2009 meeting
was not possible. The member for Thailand had retired and a replacement could not be
contacted early enough to arrange a meeting for 2009. The secretary then undertook to
explore the possibilities of an Asian meeting in 2010.

12.3 The meeting then agreed on tentative dates for the next two meetings. These were as

       November 16th-20th, 2009
       April 12th-16th, 2010.

The Secretary also took an action to coordinate with WG-I to explore the possibility of
holding these meetings concurrently or consecutively with WG-I.

ACTION ITEM #8: Secretary to explore the possibility of holding a WG-M meeting in Asia
in 2010

ACTION ITEM #9: Secretary to coordinate with WG-I to explore the possibility of holding
meeting either concurrently or consecutively.


604d6dd4-701e-4825-8184-b788d4a3e1fd.doc                                               Page12
                                                                                                      Report of ACP, WG-M/14 Meeting
                                                                                                                (Brussels, 2-5 June 2008)


                                 ICAO ACP-WG M – Maintenance: Meeting 14, Belgium, Brussels

                                                      2nd-5th June, 2009

                                  ORGANIZATIO         PHONE / FAX          E-MAIL
              NAME                N NAME
              Brent Phillips      FAA                 202-385-7188
              JohnMettrop         UK CAA              +44(0)2074536531
              Vic Patel           FAA                 609-485-5046
              Tom McParland       BCI/FAA             609-485-5453
              Rob Morgenstern     Mitre/CAASD         703-983-7846
              Michael Olive       Honeywell           410-964-7342
              Jean-Marc Vacher    DSNA (On-X          +33562145474
              Danny Van Roosbroek EUROCONTROL         +3227293471
              Tony Kerr           EUROCONTROL         +441252727681
                                  /Cival Consulting
              Chris Collings      Harris Radio        321-427-5141
              Vaughn Maiolla      ICAO                514-945-8219 x6153
              Jacky Pouzet        EUROCONTROL         +32 2 729 9011
              Nikos Fistas        EUROCONTROL         +32 2 729 9011
              Liviu Popescu       EUROCONTROL         +32 2 729 9011
              Patrick Delhaise    EUROCONTROL         +32 2 729 9011
              Yuksel Eyuboglu     EUROCONTROL         +32 2 729 9011
              Soren Dissing       EUROCONTROL         +32 2 729 9011

                                                         Page 13 of 21
Report of ACP, WG-M/14 Meeting
                                                                   (Brussels, 2-5 June 2008)

13.      APPENDIX 2 – Proposed Agenda and Schedule

WG-M Proposed Agenda:

1. Status of On-Going Data Communications Programs
    a) FAA Data Comm
    b) EUROCONTROL Link 2000+
    c) Others

2.ATN/OSI Document 9880 Update Status
   a) ICS Updates
   b) Security Updates (9705 baseline)
   c) AMHS and Directory Updates
   d) PM-FIS and PM-ADS-C Status

3. ATN/IPS Status
   a) IPS Implementation Activities
   b) Potential Adoption of IPS Security (Ground-Ground Only)
         a. Doc 9896 or Doc 9880
   c) Discussion on how to proceed with Air-Ground Secuity
   d) Report of Working Group I Meeting (VoIP Standards work)

4. Maintenance of VDL Mode-2 Documents
   - Technical Manual ICAO Doc. 9776, AEEC 631-5

5. Maintenance of VDL-4 Documents

6. Maintenance of AMSRS SARPs Document and associated Technical Manuals

7. Update on UAT developments and impacts on SARPS

8. Other business
      a. Discussion on addressing new work or the process for handling/adopting products
          from outside standards bodies.

9. Next Meeting

                                      Page 14 of 21
Report of ACP, WG-M/14 Meeting
                                                                              (Brussels, 2-5 June 2008)

WG-M:14 Proposed Schedule:

Tuesday Meeting will start at 10:00 am
                    Tuesday (2 June)     Wed. (3 June)      Thursday (4          Friday 5 (June)
Morning             Agenda Items 2a,     Agenda Item 1      Agenda Item 2b,      Review Report
                    2c, 2,d                                 3b

Afternoon           Agenda Items 3a,     Agenda Item 4,5,   Agenda Item 3c, 8,
                    3d                   6, 7               9

                                            Page 15 of 21
Report of ACP, WG-M/14 Meeting
                                                                  (Brussels, 2-5 June 2008)

14.     APPENDIX 3 – List of Action Items

ACTION ITEM #1: Secretary to post Doc. 9880 IV (c) following a suitable review period.

ACTION ITEM #2: Secretary to look into feasibility of the proposed procedure for the
handling of Amendment Proposals.

ACTION ITEM #3: Secretary to modify existing procedure to reflect new changes.

ACTION ITEM #4: Secretary to advise the Oplink panel of the WG-M discussion on the
handling of applications and inform the group on ICAO policy on this matter.

ACTION ITEM #5: All WG-M members to consult their panel members to canvas advise in
order for WG-M to make a decision on the handling of applications in the manuals.

ACTION ITEM #6: John Mettrop to keep WG-M up to date on developments regarding the
IRIDIUM Spectrum issue in UK regulated territory.

ACTION ITEM #7: Secretary to consult with WG-F before taking on action on changes to
A10 VolV.

ACTION ITEM #8: Secretary to explore the possibility of holding a WG-M meeting in Asia
in 2010.

ACTION ITEM #9: Secretary to coordinate with WG-I to explore the possibility of holding
meeting either concurrently or consecutively.

                                     Page 16 of 21
Report of ACP, WG-M/14 Meeting
                                                                            (Brussels, 2-5 June 2008)

15.        APPENDIX 4 - Status of Document 9880

   Status of various Chapters of Document 9705 regarding their transfer to Doc 9880

                    Part of          Part of          Status of transfer      ACP          ICAO-
                   Document         Document                                Repository      NET
                     9705             9880

Definitions and   Sub-Volume I                      To be converted
CM                Sub-Volume       Part I,          Approved, to be
                  II, Chapter 1    Chapter 2        published                                 
ADS-C*            Sub-Volume       On hold*         To be updated after
                  II, Chapter 2                     Op Rqmt completed
CPDLC             Sub-Volume       Part I,          Approved, to be
                  II, Chapter 3    Chapter 3        published                                 
D-FIS*            Sub-Volume       On hold*         To be updated after
                  II, Chapter 4                     Op Rqmt completed
AMHS              Sub-Volume       Part IIB         Approved, to be
                  III, Chapter 1                    published                                 
AIDC              Sub-Volume       Part IIA         Approved, to be
                  III, Chapter 2                    deleted?                                  
ULCS              Sub-Volume       Part III         Approved, to be
                  IV               Chapters 1       published                                 
                                   and 2
ICS               Sub-Volume       Part III         Draft finalised after
                  V                Chapter 3        WG-M/13                     
Systems           Sub-Volume                        Not required. To be
Management        VI                                deleted
Directory         Sub-Volume       Part IV-A        To be approved
                  VII                               (current AMHS
                                                    installations do not                      
                                                    implement DIR)
Security          Sub-Volume       Part IV-B        Ground-ground –
                  VIII                              material available
                                                    Air-ground – to be
Registration      Sub-Volume       Part IV-C        To be converted

* Updates for ADS-C and D-FIS are awaiting operational requirement inputs from OPLINK Panel
   and RTCA SC214/EUROCAE WG 78.

                                              Page 17 of 21
Report of ACP, WG-M/14 Meeting
                                                                        (Brussels, 2-5 June 2008)

16.      APPENDIX 5 – Procedure for handling of Amendment Proposals.


                                   (UPDATED 2008-06-12)

1.             Introduction.

1.1.          Detailed technical specifications for air/ground and ground/ground data link
systems are contained in the following ICAO documents:

ATN/OSI        Doc 9880, Manual on detailed technical specifications for the aeronautical
                     telecommunication network using OSI standards and protocols.

ATN/OSI        Doc 9705, Manual on technical provisions of the aeronautical
                     telecommunication network (to be withdrawn)

ATN/OSI        Doc 9739, Comprehensive Aeronautical Telecommunication Network (ATN)
                     Manual (to be withdrawn

AMS(R)S               Doc AMSRS, Manual for Aeronautical Mobile Satellite (Route)_Service

VDL Mode 2: Doc 9776, Manual on VHF Digital Link (VDL) Mode 2

VDL Mode 3 Doc 9805, Manual on VHF Digital Link (VDL) Mode 3 (currently not being

VDL Mode 4            Doc 9816, Manual on VHF Digital Link (VDL) Mode 4

HF data link          Doc 9741, Manual on HF Data Link

2.              ACP Working Group M will continue to maintain the material identified in
section 1.1 as indicated in the terms of reference agreed in ACP. In this task, the working
group will consider proposals for amending this material as a result of ongoing validation of
the detailed technical specifications and experience gained during the implementation of
these systems. Amendments are necessary when a statement of information in the manuals
or their supporting material, if not corrected, will prevent the system from meeting its stated
operational requirements.

3.              Amendment Proposals will be submitted to ACP working group M, preferably
in the format of Table 2. ACP working group M will review each amendment proposal and
agree on the changes, to be made to the relevant detailed technical specifications. The
amendment proposals will be distributed to the members of WG M by the secretariat through
placing the information on the ACP website. This would also enable all panel members to
also consider the proposals

4.             Amendment Proposals may be required when

               i.     implementation hardships occur, resulting from schedule and/or costs

                                         Page 18 of 21
Report of ACP, WG-M/14 Meeting
                                                                         (Brussels, 2-5 June 2008)
               ii      the detailed technical specifications over-specify the actual
                       requirements for achieving interoperability or may unnecessarily
                       constrain implementation or further development

               iii     the detailed technical specifications inadequately specify the actual
                       requirements for achieving the intended operational capabilities

               iv      ambiguities in the detailed technical specifications result in different
                       implementations that are not interoperable

               v       interoperability discrepancies are discovered

Note: Should a State[or a relevant international organization] identify a safety critical problem,
which might e.g. necessitate grounding of aircraft, an ICAO fast track procedure should be
established. Such a procedure would enable an amendment of the SARPs at very short
notice (e.g. 1 - 2 months). A fast track procedure is not expected to be required for detailed
technical specifications.

5.             Maintenance procedures

5.1.           The following maintenance procedures apply:

       i      interested parties submit an amendment proposal, preferably using the form in
Table 1. The proposal will address aspects relating to the backwards compatibility of the
amendment proposal. The proposal will also indicate a category from Table 1 and identify a

        ii     the amendment proposals will be placed on the ACP website as soon as

      iii      WG M will consider amendment proposals will be submitted not later than four
weeks prior to a WG M meeting

        iv     the amendment proposal will be reviewed during meetings of WG M. If
necessary, a special group will be formed to study detailed aspects of the proposal. If the
working group cannot complete its re view, the amendment proposal will be added to the list
of action items.

       v       the working group M will recommend to ICAO on the amendments necessary

        vi     ICAO will publish regularly the necessary amendments to the manuals on
detailed technical specifications and implementation aspects.

                                         Page 19 of 21
Report of ACP, WG-M/14 Meeting
                                                                       (Brussels, 2-5 June 2008)
                            Table 1. Amendment Proposal (AP)

Category        Description
Critical        The AP addresses a serious flaw in the manuals text which either:

                a) if implemented in an operational system could jeopardize safety in
                   the air, and/or

                b) would result in non-interoperability between operational systems
                which have implemented the amendment proposal and those which
                have not.

Bug             The AP addresses bugs in the manuals, which affect SARPs, and/or
                operational implementations to be fully compliant with the technical
                provisions in the manuals.
Clarification   The AP clarifies an ambiguity or omission in the manuals.

                APs in this category are useful but not essential to ensure
                interoperability and proper functioning of the system
Minor           The AP clarifies or improves the internal consistency of the manuals, but
                has no effect on implementations.
Editorial       The AP corrects one or more editorial or typographical errors in the
                manuals, or adds detail, which has no effect on implementations.
Registration    The AP proposes placeholders for activities other than those identified in
                the manuals.

                                        Page 20 of 21
Report of ACP, WG-M/14 Meeting
                                                                   (Brussels, 2-5 June 2008)
                      Table 2. Format of Amendment Proposal (AP)

AP working paper number and date:
Document(s) affected:                        Doc 9880, Manual on detailed
                                              technical specifications for the
                                              Aeronautical Telecommunication
                                              Network using OSI standards and
                                             Doc AMSRS, Manual for Aeronautical
                                              Mobile Satellite (Route) Service
                                             Doc 9776, Manual on VHF Digital Link
                                              (VDL) Mode 2,
                                             Doc 9816, Manual on VHF Digital Link
                                              (VDL) Mode 4
                                             Doc 9741, Manual on HF Data Link
Sections of Documents affected:
Coordinators address:
Coordinators Phone:
Coordinators Fax:
Coordinators e-mail address:
Category:                                CRITICAL | BUG | CLARIFICATION |
                                         MINOR | EDITORIAL | REGISTRATION
Problem description:
Backwards compatibility:
Amendment Proposal:
WG-M status:                             PROPOSED | APPROVED | PENDING |

                                    Page 21 of 21