See also: IRC log
<inserted> scribenick: kaz
paul: goes through the
agenda
... anything to add?
(nothing)
paul: Genivi will have its Member
meeting in April
... sent a message about hotel reservation
... Soumya from Eurecom will make presentation
... any questions?
junichi: goal of the f2f?
paul: Ryan Davis on media
tuner
... prime goal is going through the spec
... testing
... security
... would coordinate discussion with Genivi
... with Tier1 companies from Genivi
... anything else?
junichi: wondering how to manage my contribution due to the difficulty with schedule
paul: will be hard if you are not
there...
... would some document on what would you like to see
junichi: would be good to have Genivi guys
paul: Genivi has security
guys
... great to get what they think about Web technology
... security, etc.
... we should really get Continental, Visteon, Harman, etc.
ted: Junichi, if you can't make
the f2f meeting
... we have 2 days for the meeting?
paul: yes
ted: W3C session could be
breakout calls
... future collaboration between Genivi and W3C
... Web browser PoC
... very happy to have a pre meeting with Junichi on
security
... maybe by email we can have some discussion?
junichi: ok
hira: can you arrange a pre meeting on 26th of April on security?
ted: can hold a Doodle poll to get good timing for everybody
kaz: not necessarily April 26th?
paul: but sooner?
ted: maybe a week before
... can send a poll to the group public list
hira: junichi, when would be good for you?
junichi: f2f on 26 is ok
... have to call when it's 27-28
kaz: junichi, do you mean you can come to Paris on April 26th?
(junichi is gone...)
kaz: junichi, do you mean you can come to Paris on April 26th?
junichi: yes
... but not sure if security is a big topic
paul: would like to make security the center topic because Genivi security guys will be there
kaz: do you think we can talk with the Genivi security guys as well on 26th as a pre meeting?
paul: yes
... we need to coordinate with them, though
... Ted, what do you think?
ted: we had discussion during
TPAC on what is needed
... and we can get ideas from Genivi on what they're doing with
their stack
... one of them is joining as an Invited Expert
... probably he could provide his insight
... would get broader input as well
... make sense to have a separate security TF call
... during the whole Genivi AMM, could have breakout
sessions
... some people may or may not members
paul: we can help them pre-coordinate
kaz: so you agree to have a pre-meeting with Hashimoto-san on April 26th
junichi: tx
hira: btw, KDDI is not a Genivi member, but can we join the AMM meeting?
kaz: is the Genivi meeting for us will be Open Day again?
ted: W3C f2f meeting will be held
during the Open Day
... totally separate from Genivi
kaz: so theoretically, we'll invite Genivi guys to our meeting in Paris/
ted: W3C is not part of Genivi, but I can ask them to let us join (some of) their sessions
paul: e.g., sessions they're debating
kaz: so Hira-san doesn't have to worry
paul: anything else?
(nothing)
<kaz> https://github.com/w3c/automotive/issues/72
<kaz> Invitation for the WG call on Issue 72
<kaz> Paul's message on the Vehicle API Creation Guidelines
paul: will set up a call on the
Issue 72 next week
... really clear to me this issue is regarding the level of
APIs
... vehicle data from car
... I posted API guideline
... Kevron agrees to join the call
... think we can come to the conclusion
... without going into the details
kaz: +1
urata: do we have TAG
response?
... they posted some comments but their conclusion would be
gotten at their next meeting
<ted> https://www.w3.org/2001/tag/
paul: they didn't look at the
Issue 72
... so would suggest they look at the Issue 72
<ted> [they just had their f2f meeting, unsure of their next telconfernce. looking]
ted: not seeing response
... still have a call next call
... Tobie to understand our intention during a broader
call
... TAG had a f2f meeting, and will have calls every a
couple of weeks
... conventions of APIs changes anyhow
... more important is adoption to usage
paul: Tobie was thinking about a
bunch of sensors
... there are multiple issues on the thread
... how do you clean up your garbage
... would see a creation guideline
<ted> Paul++ for scheduling all these one on one calls in addition to this WG call to clear this up and get various perspectives
kaz: +1
paul: Dave, do you have any comments?
dave: no
paul: Tobie brought up good points
ted: please try to read the issue before the call
paul: there is app lifecycle as well
ted: different time out
paul: app lifecyle is outside of
the spec, though
... running in the foreground or background, etc.
paul: Peter is not here
junichi: would like to put ideas from the specs to a Security Note
paul: great
... regarding the call for issue 72
... planning to have it at 9:30am PST with Tobie
wonsuk: 2:30am for us...
hira: too difficult
paul: any suggestions?
wonsuk: will be recorded in the
minutes?
... we can read the minutes later
... then if we have concerns, we can raise an issue
urata: what Wonsuk said is
OK
... but I can join the call myself :)
wonsuk: anyway, can read the minutes from the call and raise issues if needed
paul: ok
ted: a couple of quick things
ted: had Genivi/W3C Liaison
call
... biggest topic was LBS API
... collaboration more actively
... also testing plan
<ted> Roundtable at TU Cybersecurity (Michigan, US) 29-30 March
<ted> WWW 2016 (Montreal, CA) 13-14 April
<ted> AC at MIT (Boston, US) 20-22 March
ted: and the other item is
conferences coming up
... as above
... W3C round table
... TU cybersecurity in Michigan
... discounting for W3C Members
<ted> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ac-forum/2016JanMar/0051.html (W3C Member-only)
ted: WWW Conference in Montreal
in April
... somebody interested can have Automotive talks
... if there are enough people from the WG, can have a
session
... lastly AC meeting at MIT on March 20-22
... have a session on industry vertical including
automotive
... if your AC is interested, we can send an invitation
paul: ok
... anything else?
hira: can I go back to the API
discussion?
... had some discussion on Issue 72 last week
... didn't see big advantage with the new proposal
... so would clarify Pros/Cons of the current API and the new
proposal
paul: can ask people to clarify
Pros/Cons
... who should we ask about that?
... would go through the thread and summarize it
... after the meeting next week, we should clarify that
<inserted> scribenick: ted
kaz: if there is not a clear compromise after next week's call we should have a deeper discussion
<inserted> scribenick: kaz
urata: agree with Hira-san, and
would clarify the discussion points
... because there are multiple discussion points in the
thread
wonsuk: agree we need clarification
[ adjourned ]