A. Submission Date: 14 MAY 2025 B.1 Submission Type: [x] New RRTYPE [ ] Modification to RRTYPE B.2 Kind of RR: [x] Data RR [ ] Meta-RR C. Contact Information for submitter (will be publicly posted): Name: Adam Wiethuechter Email Address: adam.wiethuechter&axenterprize.com International telephone number: None Other contact handles: None D. Motivation for the new RRTYPE application. This RRTYPE is to be used for the lookup of static information fields found in the ASTM F3411 standard for Remote ID (RID). It is primarily focused on Broadcast RID information elements as having them present in DNS would allow Observers to perform a lookup to obtain anything missed. E. Description of the proposed RR type. The UAS Broadcast RID RRType (BRID) is a format to hold public information typically sent of the UAS Broadcast RID that is static. It can act as a data source if information is not received over Broadcast RID or for cross validation. The wire format of the RDATA section is CBOR-encoded data. The CDDL specification for the CBOR-encoded data is as follows: bcast-rr = { uas_type => nibble-field, uas_ids => [+ uas-id-grp], ? auth => [+ auth-grp], ? self_id => self-grp, ? area => area-grp, ? classification => classification-grp, ? operator_id => operator-grp } uas-id-grp = [ id_type: &uas-id-types, uas_id: bstr .size(20) ] auth-grp = [ a_type: &auth-types, a_data: bstr .size(1..362) ] area-grp = [ area_count: 1..255, area_radius: float, # in decameters area_floor: float, # wgs84-hae in meters area_ceiling: float # wgs84-hae in meters ] classification-grp = [ class_type: 0..8, class: nibble-field, category: nibble-field ] self-grp = [ desc_type: 0..255, description: tstr .size(23) ] operator-grp = [ operator_id_type: 0..255, operator_id: bstr .size(20) ] uas-id-types = (none: 0, serial: 1, session_id: 4) auth-types = (none: 0, specific_method: 5) nibble-field = 0..15 uas_type = 0 uas_ids = 1 auth = 2 self_id = 3 area = 4 classification = 5 operator_id = 6 The presentation format of the RDATA section is the base64-encoded CBOR data. F. What existing RRTYPE or RRTYPEs come closest to filling that need and why are they unsatisfactory? None. G. What mnemonic is requested for the new RRTYPE (optional)? BRID H. Does the requested RRTYPE make use of any existing IANA registry or require the creation of a new IANA subregistry in DNS Parameters? No. I. Does the proposal require/expect any changes in DNS servers/resolvers that prevent the new type from being processed as an unknown RRTYPE (see [RFC3597])? No. J. Comments: None.