00:02:17 RRSAgent has joined #auto 00:02:17 logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/11/02-auto-irc 00:02:38 Present+ Ted 00:02:44 could anyone share the meeting link? 00:03:12 wonsuk has joined #auto 00:03:15 https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-automotive/2016Nov/0002.html 00:03:16 https://mit.webex.com/mit/j.php?MTID=m5725346ef636a79237c9d76ac2b70570 00:03:39 thank you ted :) 00:04:37 Present+ Rudolf 00:04:42 Present+ Kaz 00:06:02 present+ Hira, Junichi, Powell, Urata, WOnsuk 00:06:14 s/WOnsuk/Wonsuk/ 00:06:16 scribenick: ted 00:06:48 Rudi does role call and assumes chair for the call 00:07:39 -> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-automotive/2016Nov/0006.html agenda items proposed by Kaz wrt VW proposal 00:07:41 q+ 00:07:55 q+ 00:08:38 ted: WG had initial response to VW 00:09:05 ... we've not confirmation yet 00:09:36 rudi: no, we've not got their response yet 00:12:12 ... the question is if we could find a path 00:13:05 ... the ball is in their court at the moment 00:13:11 @@ted 00:13:13 q- 00:14:44 -> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-automotive/2016Nov/0006.html Kaz's message 00:14:54 ack k 00:15:17 -> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-automotive/2016Nov/0001.html Urata-san's message 00:15:22 kaz: agree with you and Ted that we should not dive into the particulars of VW proposal given we do not have a clear indication from them yet 00:15:47 rudi: agree we can proceed on the questionnaire email 00:16:02 … Urata-san you had some point 00:16:40 s/yet/yet. on the other hand, we should clarify several procedural points: 1. how to conclude the Member questionnaire, 2. how to collaborate with the BG, 3. how to handle/publish the minutes from the Burlingame f2f/ 00:17:15 urata: i worry that not too many have seen and responded to that thread 00:17:45 q+ 00:17:46 hira: we are approaching the deadline we initially set of 2 weeks, should we try to reach a conclusion during this conference call? 00:17:47 q+ 00:18:23 urata: I think the more active participants are aware already and might not have responded 00:18:41 ack k 00:18:59 … we can perhaps reach a consensus based on those who are more active 00:19:33 kaz: one possible option would be to continue detailed discussion on the BG side for the vehicle signal and client mechanism 00:19:52 … they would likely want to weigh in as well 00:20:23 wonsuk: we already have consensus on current charter 00:21:08 s/one possible/understand Hira-san's point and fine with making decision during this call. as already discussed during the f2f, one possible/ 00:21:10 … we can discuss VW proposal further in the BG before bringing to the WG 00:21:54 s/in as well/in as well. and I'd like to ask Wonsuk as well for opinion./ 00:22:52 … VW proposal is broader includes media and other which is more within scope of BG 00:23:10 … they can share their proposal to the BG 00:23:27 q+ 00:23:44 ted: agree bringing the proposal to the BG would make sense 00:25:19 … until we have a formal proposal on the table, there is nothing to vote on 00:25:49 rudi: there are procedural questions pending 00:26:37 … I'm not sure if putting the VW proposal in BG is the best approach 00:27:11 … it may be a mix, some could go directly into the WG spec 00:27:57 present+ Paul 00:28:23 rrsagent, make log member 00:28:27 rrsagent, draft minutes 00:28:27 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/11/02-auto-minutes.html kaz 00:28:55 Chair: Rudi, Paul 00:29:29 ted: if parts belong more within the WG that is fine 00:29:48 [Paul arrives and Ted gives summary] 00:30:40 paul: BG has been focused mostly on LBS and they can discuss this VW proposal including how to approach specific ideas to the WG 00:30:56 … it is informative at this point, something brought to the table 00:31:08 q+ 00:31:26 … we have a path for deliverables and a tragectory 00:31:51 s/tragectory/trajectory/ 00:32:03 i/WG had initial response/scribenick: kaz/ 00:32:13 i/agree with you and Ted/scribenick: Ted/ 00:32:15 … we should be attracting eyes from the community on our FPWD 00:32:16 rrsagent, draft minutes 00:32:16 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/11/02-auto-minutes.html kaz 00:33:36 s|from them yet|from them yet. on the other hand, we should clarify several procedural points: 1. how to conclude the Member questionnaire, 2. how to collaborate with the BG, 3. how to handle/publish the minutes from the Burlingame f2f| 00:33:37 rrsagent, draft minutes 00:33:37 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/11/02-auto-minutes.html kaz 00:34:44 s|s/yet/yet. on the other hand, we should clarify several procedural points: 1. how to conclude the Member questionnaire, 2. how to collaborate with the BG, 3. how to handle/publish the minutes from the Burlingame f2f/|| 00:34:46 rrsagent, draft minutes 00:34:46 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/11/02-auto-minutes.html kaz 00:34:58 ted @@group_decision 00:35:34 paul: BG created the vehicle data and api they sent to the WG which changed from that webidl to web sockets 00:35:55 … the BG is more open ended without being bound to a specific standard 00:35:55 s/webidl/WebIDL/ 00:36:53 -> https://www.w3.org/community/autowebplatform/automotive-and-web-platform-business-group-charter/ BG Charter 00:36:54 q+ 00:38:01 … we are going to have future input that could be disruptive 00:38:43 … VW bringing their ideas was beneficial 00:38:45 q- 00:39:06 rudi: agree we need to move forward with what we have right now 00:39:23 … we have formulated a path forward with VW, we need to await a response and then we can react 00:42:47 Hashimoto-san please mute, noisy! 00:42:47 junichi: @@@ 00:42:59 urata-access has joined #auto 00:43:12 PowellKinney has joined #auto 00:43:28 q? 00:43:41 [Powell arrives] 00:44:00 powell: my undestanding is that the VW spec is based on REST 00:44:03 ted: and sockets 00:44:21 paul: they expect primarily REST unless you need a continuous data feed in which case go sockets 00:44:28 … they are using the same data objects 00:44:32 I m Ok with Rudi-san' proposal and we shold move with current charter timeline 00:44:51 powell: are we looking to supplant their methods with ours or amend with the rest portion 00:45:19 Sorry.. I leave for another meeting soon. 00:45:51 paul: they are shipping vehicles at present so can benefit from production experiences 00:46:12 From the perspective of security, we don’t know the mechanism of ViWi proposal at all. If we treat their spec in WG we need to investigate it and I’m afraid that this task doesn’t meet current timeline. 00:46:40 … we do not have a one clear path but will explore which to take, perhaps taking pieces from one or the other 00:46:51 … the direction they took was developer driven 00:46:56 powell: it reads that way 00:47:39 … thought is we continue what we're doing and we look towards extending based 00:48:58 ted: it could take a number of directions 00:49:18 powell: a number of similarities, our data model is different and agree we can possible converge later 00:50:42 ted: clearly they saw enough similarities that they thought to approach us and ideally we do converge 00:51:16 … also we recently learned that PSA, although involved in Genivi and a bit in LBS with us, has another REST api they recently published 00:55:21 Topic: next steps after FPWD 00:55:25 q+ 00:55:45 rudi: I can take an action to give feedback from Mozilla and propose text for our spec to avoid confusion 00:56:14 ted: hopefully we'll get more feedback as a result and should go over as a group, any edits to the spec 00:56:39 … if anyone is starting some early implementations please provide feedback and test cases 00:57:00 rudi: i'll send any experience notes we develop 00:58:29 kaz: should we create an issue in github for mozilla presentation. should we include the BG in feedback to VW proposal? 00:59:01 rudi: that is a moot point until we have a clear indication from them on interest in proceeding 00:59:55 … the cloud access component is interesting 01:00:26 kaz: the BG should also discuss how to handle new proposals as well 01:00:53 rudi: yes new proposals brought to the BG should be discussed to access there is enough interest and resources to proceed with proper expertise 01:02:04 hira: the BG in general is open to proposals 01:02:23 ted: very true, dependent as Rudi said based on enough interest and expertise 01:02:46 rrsagent, make log public 01:02:47 kaz: ok to publish today's minutes as public 01:02:56 rrsagent, draft minutes 01:02:56 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/11/02-auto-minutes.html kaz 01:03:13 rudi: VW understands that we operate publicly 01:04:04 Meeting: Automotive WG 01:04:06 rrsagent, draft minutes 01:04:06 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/11/02-auto-minutes.html kaz 01:05:06 wonsuk: can we discuss this externally or within the BG at this point? 01:05:16 rudi: unclear, still waiting on their response 01:05:24 … no need for action until they respond 01:05:39 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/11/02-auto-minutes.html ted 01:08:29 s/: 1. how to conclude the Member questionnaire, 2. how to collaborate with the BG, 3. how to handle/publish the minutes from the Burlingame f2f// 01:08:31 rrsagent, draft minutes 01:08:31 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/11/02-auto-minutes.html kaz 01:09:30 s/ted @@group_decision/ted: while there are some discussions among chairs and team contacts, any direction the BG and WG takes will be a group decision/ 01:10:16 s/@@ted/ted: procedurally until we have a formal proposal there is nothing to decide on/ 01:10:31 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/11/02-auto-minutes.html ted 01:11:26 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/11/02-auto-minutes.html ted 01:12:16 s/From the perspective of security, we don’t know the mechanism of ViWi proposal at all. If we treat their spec in WG we need to investigate it and I’m afraid that this task doesn’t meet current timeline.// 01:12:34 s/junichi: @@@/junichi: From the perspective of security, we don’t know the mechanism of ViWi proposal at all. If we treat their spec in WG we need to investigate it and I’m afraid that this task doesn’t meet current timeline/ 01:12:35 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/11/02-auto-minutes.html ted 01:13:19 I see no action items