<scribe> Meeting: RPC and Service Catalog
<scribe> scribenick: ted
<scribe> Scribe: Ted
MagnusF: Gunnar and Tobias made
strong cases for WAMP and clear indicator. gRPC packaging was a
strong pull
... I think I'm leaning toward WAMP. it not having an interface
definition language is an asset for us
... I think Gunnar is right
Gunnar: interesting...
... I have not doubled down, just presented an option and
provided a reminder
MagnusF: are there other protocols worth exploring further?
[crickets]
Ted: as mentioned we want to explore
such as aligning RPC and Gen2 architectures, consider what we can do to
bring Gen2 and WAMP closer together
... for RPC we should develop use cases further as well, and can
then test our hypothesis with WAMP as a contender
... very curious how WAMP and Gen2 can
compliment or latter can sit on former, perhaps leverage some of his
pieces or at least draw from their experiences
... thanks Gunnar for intro
Gunnar: I spoke with him awhile
ago and looped him in more from possible bug report and stand
corrected
... we can reuse the router within server or even message
format
Ulf: I think you are touching on
something here
... there are differences between WAMP (three party
architecture) compared to two party
... it would be interesting to have some higher level
architecture alternates, this broker can come in at different
places
... might be shoe-horning, maybe valuable
Gunnar: I think it might be
fairly easy looking at the messaging format, likely similar to
our client/server JSON
... rest is just more flexibility for future
... having routed RPC is a feature we may not need but it is
available
... producer and consumer do not need to know each other
Ted: I do not have the exact details but
when going over the list of our current issues with Tobias brought up push vs pull
... without an open port, perhaps polling client (in cloud for off
boarding use case), can have a pull initiated and push data?
MagnusF: it seems like WAMP also
supports native TCP real use possibilities
... this may follow SomeIP
Ted: they can also do UDP
MagnusF: there are weird firewall rules for mobile connections
Ted: should I setup a VM for prototyping with WAMP or is that too soon? lets focus on use cases more first perhaps
MagnusF: reached out to my Waymo contact and got response that now not the right time
Ted: I'll be speaking with Patrick Bartsch on Wednesday, formerly VW, recently left JLR and at Amazon now
https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Member/List
Ted reiterates request of getting stakeholders we want using this involved, be sure we are creating something suitable from their perspective
Glenn: one of the interested
parties is power utilities so they can do their load balancing
better
... that would be a good collaborative use case as EVs are on
the uptake
Ted: I worked for a power company way back then... Kevin can maybe help as EV and grid cybersecurity is in his purview
Glenn: I will talk to our business people and see if they have anyone in mind
Ted: I'll add use case to our wiki
https://www.w3.org/community/autowebplatform/wiki/RPC
Glenn: with only 3% EVs not an issue yet but as the adoption increases that will be more critical
Jon: I may have a few use cases I
can share next time
... EV home charging certainly one
MagnusF: do we want to approach
fleet managers?
... eg zipcar
Jon: yes
MagnusF: car2go seems to have gone down, getaround
Ted: I have an old contact at Zipcar, more policy focused
MagnusF: I Have someone at
getaround perhaps
... not sure about new management, environment, etc
Glenn: we can talk to Enterprise and can look at others
Jon: I'll see if I can find the right person on our end regarding who might be interesting participants
Next steps: flush out use cases more, reach out to potential stakeholders to further them
Gunnar: formalize the YAML tree and how to implement
MagnusF: there is a validator available inside JLR and see if Steven can open it up
Next steps (contd): WAMP tour from Tobias