Re: Request to make the issue list for VISS

Hi Gunnar,

Thanks very much for asking re. this issue.

The issue that the wwwivi name was trying to address was to provide a
standarized local endpoint name on the vehicle that would be the same
regardless of vehicle manufacturer.

This would mean that client Apps could be downloaded to vehicles created by
different manufacturers and connect to the VIS Server on those vehicles
without additional configuration being required.

We were trying to avoid adding a dependency on a discovery service. We
could avoid the issue, by stating that the implementer of the server will
document how to connect to it.

As a group, we are keen to resolve this issue in the best way we can, so
will be grateful for your input.

Thanks and regards,

Kev

*Kevin Gavigan BSc, MSc, PhD, MCP, MCTS*
*Software Architect*
*Connected Infotainment*
*Electrical, Electronic and Software Engineering (EESE)*
Jaguar Land Rover


*Mobile: 07990 084866*
*Email:* kgavigan@jaguarlandrover.com

*Office address:*
GO03/057 • Building 523, Gaydon • Maildrop: (G03)
Jaguar Land Rover • Banbury Road • Gaydon • Warwick • CV35 0RR

On 7 September 2017 at 09:50, Gunnar Andersson <gandersson@genivi.org>
wrote:

>
> Wonsuk, Kevin, and all,
>
> On Thu, 2017-09-07 at 02:15 +0000, 이원석 wrote:
> > Kevin.
> > Thanks for summary for VISS issue we have. Only outstanding issue to go
> CR
> > is #223 (wwwivi). To me, Hyojin’s proposal(using .local) could be an one
> > of possible solution. But It seem need to have more broader feedback
> > including OEM and related companies. I think we need to get a feedback
> > from GENIVI side as well. Right? Anyone can follow up? Or Is it already
> on
> > going?
>
> I have only been reading through the GitHub comments to try to understand
> but unfortunately I have not been part of the original discussions.
>
> Just off hand I have difficulty buying into the idea of a new top-level
> domain (and in particular "wwwivi"), and also in fact assigning a special
> meaning for "ivi.w3.org" or similar.  In general I wonder if automotive
> really needs anything new and unique here.
>
> But before I dig into that, maybe check that I have not misunderstood.
> Could someone just review again, what is the original idea and the problem
> that needs to be solved?  Just starting at the top level, why is _anything_
> needed here?  (Sorry for not having the background clear).
>
> Is it that all systems should be able to rely on a particular special
> domain
> name existing, and after name resolution, the server answering there is
> guaranteed to always be providing a VISS service?  The domain name
> translate
> through local name resolution to an appropriate IP, right.  Is this server
> always local or possibly also remote?
>
>
> - Gunnar
>
>
> >
> > Kind regards,
> > Wonsuk.
> >
> > From: Gavigan, Kevin [mailto:kgavigan@jaguarlandrover.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2017 11:21 PM
> > To: 이원석 <wonsuk.lee@etri.re.kr>
> > Cc: Crofts, Adam <acrofts1@jaguarlandrover.com>; public-automotive
> <public
> > -automotive@w3.org>
> > Subject: Re: Request to make the issue list for VISS
> >
> > Hi Wonsuk,
> >
> > Good to hear from you and great to hear that there is a consensus to
> bring
> > VISS and VIAS to CR before the upcoming TPAC.
> >
> > Adam and I have been working thru the VISS issues when we could in
> > background and as far as I know, they have been either been cleared and
> > closed  or we are almost ready to merge (e.g. #226)
> >
> > The only exception is #223 (wwwivi) - we would very much appreciate
> > feedback from the group on how we should proceed.
> >
> > If we can resolve #223, we could potentially be in position to propose
> > moving to CR within a few days...
> >
> > Kind regards,
> >
> > Kev
> >
> >
>