Automotive WG
02 Nov 2016

Rudi does role call and assumes chair for the call

-> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-automotive/2016Nov/0006.html agenda items proposed by Kaz wrt VW proposal

ted: WG had initial response to VW
... we've not confirmation yet

rudi: no, we've not got their response yet
... the question is if we could find a path
... the ball is in their court at the moment

ted procedurally until we have a formal proposal there is nothing to decide on

-> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-automotive/2016Nov/0006.html Kaz's message

-> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-automotive/2016Nov/0001.html Urata-san's message

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. 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

rudi: agree we can proceed on the questionnaire email
... Urata-san you had some point

urata: i worry that not too many have seen and responded to that thread

hira: we are approaching the deadline we initially set of 2 weeks, should we try to reach a conclusion during this conference call?

urata: I think the more active participants are aware already and might not have responded
... we can perhaps reach a consensus based on those who are more active

kaz: understand Hira-san's point and fine with making decision during this call. as already discussed during the f2f, one possible option would be to continue detailed discussion on the BG side for the vehicle signal and client mechanism
... they would likely want to weigh in as well. and I'd like to ask Wonsuk as well for opinion.

wonsuk: we already have consensus on current charter
... we can discuss VW proposal further in the BG before bringing to the WG
... VW proposal is broader includes media and other which is more within scope of BG
... they can share their proposal to the BG

ted: agree bringing the proposal to the BG would make sense

wonsuk: until we have a formal proposal on the table, there is nothing to vote on

rudi: there are procedural questions pending
... I'm not sure if putting the VW proposal in BG is the best approach
... it may be a mix, some could go directly into the WG spec

ted: if parts belong more within the WG that is fine

[Paul arrives and Ted gives summary]

paul: BG has been focused mostly on LBS and they can discuss this VW proposal including how to approach specific ideas to the WG
... it is informative at this point, something brought to the table
... we have a path for deliverables and a trajectory
... we should be attracting eyes from the community on our FPWD

ted: while there are some discussions among chairs and team contacts, any direction the BG and WG takes will be a group decision

paul: BG created the vehicle data and api they sent to the WG which changed from that WebIDL to web sockets
... the BG is more open ended without being bound to a specific standard

<kaz> BG Charter

paul: we are going to have future input that could be disruptive
... VW bringing their ideas was beneficial

rudi: agree we need to move forward with what we have right now
... we have formulated a path forward with VW, we need to await a response and then we can react

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

[Powell arrives]

powell: my undestanding is that the VW spec is based on REST

ted: and sockets

paul: they expect primarily REST unless you need a continuous data feed in which case go sockets
... they are using the same data objects

<urata-access> I m Ok with Rudi-san' proposal and we shold move with current charter timeline

powell: are we looking to supplant their methods with ours or amend with the rest portion

paul: they are shipping vehicles at present so can benefit from production experiences
... we do not have a one clear path but will explore which to take, perhaps taking pieces from one or the other
... the direction they took was developer driven

powell: it reads that way
... thought is we continue what we're doing and we look towards extending based

ted: it could take a number of directions

powell: a number of similarities, our data model is different and agree we can possible converge later

ted: clearly they saw enough similarities that they thought to approach us and ideally we do converge
... also we recently learned that PSA, although involved in Genivi and a bit in LBS with us, has another REST api they recently published

next steps after FPWD

rudi: I can take an action to give feedback from Mozilla and propose text for our spec to avoid confusion

ted: hopefully we'll get more feedback as a result and should go over as a group, any edits to the spec
... if anyone is starting some early implementations please provide feedback and test cases

rudi: i'll send any experience notes we develop

kaz: should we create an issue in github for mozilla presentation. should we include the BG in feedback to VW proposal?

rudi: that is a moot point until we have a clear indication from them on interest in proceeding
... the cloud access component is interesting

kaz: the BG should also discuss how to handle new proposals as well

rudi: yes new proposals brought to the BG should be discussed to access there is enough interest and resources to proceed with proper expertise

hira: the BG in general is open to proposals

ted: very true, dependent as Rudi said based on enough interest and expertise

kaz: ok to publish today's minutes as public

rudi: VW understands that we operate publicly

wonsuk: can we discuss this externally or within the BG at this point?

rudi: unclear, still waiting on their response
... no need for action until they respond