See also: IRC log
Shinjiro: I am concerned about the timeline for the roadmap
Paul: the charter still needs works clearly. what issues do you see specifically?
Shinjiro: FPWD is due this September which does not seem like much time
Paul: JLR editors feel it is possible and it would be useful to have something concrete to discuss at W3C TPAC and Genivi AMM
Shinjiro: if they feel it is possible, it is ok with me. it does seem optmistic
Paul: agree, remember this is an
initial talking point and not set in stone
... Ted, your thoughts?
Ted: in-line, it is ambitious but
we want to get people looking at it
... I'll get input on W3C side if people think timing with AC
review, recharter and publication
... it might be suggested we push that back a quarter
<urata_access> https://w3c.github.io/automotive/charter-2016/
Paul: I made some revisions, what are next steps?
Shinjiro: not so many changes and
they seem reasonable
... I'm also concerned about a dramatic change from client side
WebIDL to server side sockets
... will this be acceptable by W3C and when can we know?
... perhaps we will not get a reaction until it is
published
Ted: you cannot predict how an
audience will respond. we should provide an accompanying
document for rationale on why we made that switch
... I will get working with Kaz, Philipp and others at W3C plus
send an email to WG to provide input
<junichi-hashimoto> https://cabforum.org/wp-content/uploads/Guidance-Deprecated-Internal-Names.pdf
Ted: before sending to W3C Management, I will make sure to give WG last chance to review
Junichi: my concern is that we will not be able to get certificates from a regonized CA for wwwvi.local
Ted: correct CA do not nor should issue such certificates. OEM will need to self-sign
Junich: we should mention that explicitly in the specification then
<urata_access> https://cabforum.org/wp-content/uploads/Guidance-Deprecated-Internal-Names.pdf
Shinjiro: will we have F2F at both TPAC and AMM?
Paul: we did say that but need
clarity
... most people won't be able to go to both. some can make one
or the other
... it would be great to have interaction from W3C community
for automotive
Ted: we discussed doing a survey to get a sense of who will be able to attend which
<urata_access> urata: "we should provide an accompanying document for rationale on why we made that switch", yes, I think we need good reason
<urata_access> I think one is "easier to implement without modifying browser native code"
<urata_access> another one is, " better collaboration with Genivi by using same data structure"
<urata_access> and data structure flexibility
<urata_access> bye