Automotive Working Group Teleconference

Test Suite

-> https://github.com/aShinjiroUrata/web-platform-tests/tree/dev-urata-vsss-test/vehicle-signal-server-spec Test Cases

Urata: we have 32 tests identified in our document

-> http://www.w3.org/mid/CANXs=p6Po+EQPnQF8aWbimn+F0uFaSDd6T4HtGKFTKV2S1aaYw@mail.gmail.com Urata's email

Urata: I have 21 written and another dozen or so to go
... authentication is a bit trickier to test. I can have two tokens with different permissions
... we do not have enough of a description about authentication level to be able to write a test against
... if it is implementation dependent and will not be defined in the spec then it will be difficult for others to reuse this test suite
... another point is my prototype doesn't support the filter function
... both will take some tweaking to handle

Ted: I believe you are right, we left auth level to implementation and that makes it difficult to test
... one idea is to have a known restricted signal to try to access and expect it to be refused

Urata: there isn't a good way to test auth level

Adam: thank you for your work. I think the solution might be to put read/write flags in VSS data model
... we have vehicle and user level tokens. we could have a vehicle level token, user level and hybrid and different tests using the different tokens that might help
... I will elaborate further in github issues thread

Urata: do you think more needs to be added to the authentication portion of the spec?

Adam: there is a pull request for a more detailed example
... have you seen that and should we elaborate further?

-> https://github.com/w3c/automotive/pull/138 example pull request

Adam: it helps conceptualize it more

Urata: I will look further and comment if I think I need more

Peter: we are starting to look at authorization manager for our implementation here
... if you have different subscriptions and different tokens expiring for portions of the tree, how do you handle?

Adam: in the spec it says you can reset your existing authentication and build on top of it

John: I work for IFSF and had a similar problem years ago
... when you do a mobile payment for fuel there is a token generated and sent to a site
... we found it inadequate since it changes every time and you need to know who the person is
... you could use the vehicle token as a constant and use it as a means to identify the randomly generated one

Adam: in section 8 of the current specification we discuss tokens for device and application

http://rawgit.com/w3c/automotive/gh-pages/vehicle_data/vehicle_information_service.html

John: can you elaborate on the device, the vehicle or a phone or?

Adam: the vehicle itself
... the infotainment unit

John gives some background on himself including building Shell app

Adam: I'm from JLR and we started using that recently

Ted introduces John to the WG

Urata: regarding the test suite topic I think I have nothing more to say at this point

Adam: the action will be to further discuss VSS permissions model and make sure it aligns well with section 8 of the VISS

-> https://github.com/w3c/automotive/issues/132 What fomat of json should be returned by getVSS()? #132

Ted: I closed that on a previous call when going over open issues as Urata felt his question was sufficiently answered
... I'll reopen

Adam: we did digress from the original topic

Rudi: it does not make sense to expose signals that are not available
... not security through obscurity but trying to pair down traffic and avoid developer/app confusion

F2F and conferene schedule

-> https://www.eiseverywhere.com/ehome/225965 May 9-11, 2017 Birmingham, UK

Ted: Thursday and Friday looks like the best but need to get confirmation still on room availability from Karin Hanson
... Wednesday is possible too given others' meeting schedules at AMM but would conflict with Genivi's Open day
... showcase is on Wednesday evening and we may get a table again but that would be disruptive to the meeting with people needing to do setup

Rudi: Beginning of the week I have other commitments at Genivi

Mike: I think Volker will represent IBM in the UK. I might be able to attend a March meeting in North America

Adam: I don't think that has been settled yet, leaning in the thread was 1/2 day teleconference[s]

Urata: Hira proposed a March F2F and people responded with teleconference idea

Peter: yes, limited travel budgets for two meetings so close together

Rudi: I started a poll to see what would work best
... we have had 9 responses and all have indicated that they are favorable to meet. we would need to figure out the timezones

Hira: what timezones are we looking at?

<rstreif> http://doodle.com/poll/yitqh6i8dq7wbrar

Rudi: I will quote GMT times and try to find something

Hira: maybe we need three times for discussion
... for VISS, VIAS and Test Suites, one for each topic

Rudi: I put three sessions and wanted to see based on the participants if we had any geographic/regional intersts on those topics that would help settle on times
... no such pattern emerged so will have to settle on arbitrary times

Hira: 6am in Japan is acceptable

Urata: that is very difficult for me
... 2am is in fact better

Peter: is a March F2F out of the question?

Rudi: two days plus travel time

<mike> teleconference +1

hira: f2f

peter: f2f

adam: teleconference

rudi: teleconference

urata: either ok

john: abstains

[VISS editors in Europe so should favor that timezone for that call, Powell is our VIAS editor so check with his availability, Urata has done all the Test Suite work so Asian friendly for that call]

Rudi: Propose week of 5 March

<mike> i'm open, flexible

Peter: regrets that week

Rudi: week of 12 March

Adam: ok for me except Friday
... our BG meeting is on that Tuesday

Ted: I was hoping to delve into payments on that BG call. if we can avoid that hour that would be my preference but otherwise alright

Urata: this is prepration for moving the spec to CR
... after these meetings can we expect to be ready for that?

Rudi: that is my expectation as well

Urata: we should work on agenda for each meeting
... is that clear yet?

Ted: I will start an agenda on a wiki. Chairs control the agenda so may revise as could people based on their specific areas who know about different issues

Urata: we need some prototype implementation for VIAS and test suite for it
... I am concerned if that spec will make that schedule

Hira: we have yet to publish FPWD for VIAS
... after we need wide review

https://www.w3.org/2015/Process-20150901/

Ted: I share the conern about VIAS schedule. when Powell is ready and this group has reviewed it I can publish
... my quick read of the process document suggests we need 4 weeks at FPWD before we can go to CR
... I encourage people to start looking at Powell's work. there has been relatively little feedback so far

Peter: I have done some

Urata: I will as well

Peter: I am working on our service implementation this week and will look for a colleague to review it
... phone conference will be on week 11, specific times pending

[adjourned]