W3C

Automotive Working Group Teleconference

28 Apr 2020

Attendees

Present
Ted, Adnan, Ulf, Peter, Gunnar, MagnusF, Isaac, MagnusG, Glenn
Regrets
Chair
Peter
Scribe
Ted

Contents


<scribe> Scribe: Ted

<scribe> scribenick: ted

Two day meetings – online talks

Sent scheduling survey to the list, will work on times after settle on days and start agenda wiki

Peter: there is a virtual GENIVI meeting in May

Gunnar: 12-14 May, afternoon/evening CET first two days, more Asia friendly the other two days

focus on second half of month, weeks of 18 and 25 May

Best Practices

Ted points to Best Practices wiki and task force call survey

Access Control

Peter: I want us to try to focus on how to move this topic forward, toward conclusions for spec
... want to hear in particular from Gunnar, Isaac, Ulf in particular
... what steps do we take next?

Ulf: I think we have some iterations and then can focus on decision for May meeting

Gunnar: not enough work being done on it, need to work through various aspects

Peter: meeting later in May will help as well

Gunnar: I want a clear flow understanding on the tokens and various servers
... we need something for the authentication piece - how to do identification

Peter: I agree with that

Gunnar: message sequence chart

Ulf: one example is the current implementation we have

Gunnar: this the proxy of user proposal?

Ulf: no, based on ViWi and later discussions
... these tokens can be put into JWT decoder, it can serve as input

MagnusG: we are pretty close to Oauth2/OpenID like Isaac brought forward recently
... that can provide the sequence diagram

Gunnar: it makes sense to me

Isaac: we can try some of the different possible flows to see what works best in this situation
... one is probably pretty close to what Ulf has

Ulf: sounds good

Ted: been in communication with Armin on his LPL recently, XACML based now. I see policy and best practices as closely related

Isaac: part of sticky policies interests, having privacy and other aspects attached to data being sent to the cloud
... another discussion is how complex or simple the policies can be
... not giving concern on where to store the policies, assertions in them

Ted wonders about returning to oauth2 subtopic, see if Ulf has read through it yet

Ulf: in the Google developer docs, they use their client/servers and can look at having those interfaces in our Gen2 implementation
... their ADT equivalent gives back an email address and self generates a token, ours gives token back
... that token to authorization server and it gives back another which is used in final step where api is called (Gen2 in our case)
... main difference is the first step, rest quite similar. they send back key pair to self generate token
... client then has control

Ted wonders about different flows Isaac mentioned for first step

Isaac: this way you can give client long term capability to self sign as long as its key pair lasts until expiry
... they are authenticating the clients
... oauth is delegating access
... in our case we will be authenticating applications

(as client)

Ted client app could store its key

Isaac: you can also have additional eg hardware tokens

2FA - or rather multi-factor

Isaac: app can have full access once granted, generated keys could be stored in device and no other instances

Ulf: what sort of protocols are used in sending the client the key pair?

Isaac: they have the oauth server generate a public key, gives it to client that uses it to generate another and send it back

Ulf: that is a pretty big requirement for implementations of Gen2

Isaac: it could be used for authenticating devices being paired with the vehicle, may require different flow
... re requirements, Android and iOS have similar models

Ted wonders about miniapps manifest spec https://github.com/w3c/miniapp/blob/gh-pages/specs/manifest/docs/explainer.md

Application ID is merely a string identifier, but could still be useful to identify a particular (application specific) flow for first interaction with oauth server generating the key pair, server can also call out of bounds to other authentication factors (hardware token, otp etc) as part of its flow at app registration/installation

Ulf: I also want to share https://github.com/GENIVI/ccs-w3c-client
... data lake of GENIVI's CCS project

AOB?

Gunnar: graphql example is up, still missing the tooling
... there is a docker instance and once fired up you can play with it in browser

https://github.com/GENIVI/vss-graphql

we now have a data policy for hosting graph data, lets see if we can get any legacy data as current rather limited

Glenn: we are looking at running Ulf's data lake and can move that to sandbox you provide

Ted inquires if Go devices still available if anyone wants, Glenn affirms

Glenn: we want to see other data sources from the OEMs

Ted encourages Peter to coordinate with Joakim as he thought he may have data to contribute

Peter: I'll get in touch with him

Ted to reach out to Daniel and Adnan (dropped earlier)

Graph policy

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

[End of minutes]

Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.154 (CVS log)
$Date: 2020/04/28 19:22:47 $