Re: [Minutes] Auto BG 2017-09-12

Gunnar,

Thank you for the corrections, I have updated the minutes. It was a bit
difficult to hear you either due to headset or more likely WebEx acting
up.

On Tue, 2017-09-12 at 19:22 +0200, Gunnar Andersson wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-09-12 at 12:44 -0400, Ted Guild wrote:
> > Today's minutes are available online
> > 
> > https://www.w3.org/2017/09/12-auto-minutes
> > 
> 
> Thanks for providing the minutes, Ted.
> 
> I think I was misquoted here though:  (I know it was hard to hear)
> 
> > Gunnar: if a specification has features beyond what is needed, that
> > might
> 
> be an indication it is not the best match
> 
> I was rather making the opposite point - that you can probably simply
> use a
> subset of the features, and the existence of additional features
> should
> *not* offhand be used as an indication of it not being a good match.
>   
> I did note that it of course needs to be investigated if the
> existence of
> additional features has a negative impact (performance, overhead or
> complexity, ...), but I don't think that is always the case.

Security as well. WAMP certainly has some potential here and I do not
have a strong opinion formed yet for or against. So far we have
satisfied use cases with get, set and subscribe. I'm interested in
learning of possible needs for RPC calls. They strike me as possibly
being more complicated/nuanced to define access control for. 

One of the things I liked about web sockets and HTTP REST of the
current VISS approach (and RSI) is how we did away with the need to
maintain WebIDL API functions, similar to RPC calls, for each
interaction. Having a separate data model (VSS) that can evolve
independently of the spec, means we would not need to update the spec
and add functions as new signals are defined.

https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/WD-vehicle-information-api-20160119/
https://www.w3.org/TR/2015/WD-vehicle-data-20150616/

> In the case of WAMP [1], there is no doubt in my mind that also
> having some
> powerful features (such as routed RPC) available when you need them
> is
> beneficial in a full system design that takes into account not only
> the Web
> side of things, but other parts too.
> 
> This is also perhaps a bit misleading:
> 
> > Gunnar: we have been making some big changes on LBS on our side
> 
> To be clear, no major changes to the LBS APIs.  I only gave a heads-
> up that 
> in this area you can expect additional supporting technology for
> those APIs
> to come soon.
> 
> 
> Hope this helps,
> 
> - Gunnar
> 
> [1] http://wamp-proto.org/
> 
> -- 
> Gunnar Andersson <gandersson@genivi.org>
> Development Lead
> GENIVI Alliance
> 
> 
> 
> 
-- 
Ted Guild <ted@w3.org>
W3C Systems Team
http://www.w3.org