- From: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 02:24:31 +0900
- To: public-automotive <public-automotive@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAJ8iq9UOJy0vmFZEwg_BfRHCRM66wKgpd1in9J31SbSwOLdGHQ@mail.gmail.com>
available at: http://www.w3.org/2015/11/24-auto-minutes.html also as text below. I've just updated the publication timeline on the wiki at: https://www.w3.org/auto/wg/wiki/Main_Page#Publication_Schedule based on today's discussion. Thanks, Kazuyuki --- [1]W3C [1] http://www.w3.org/ - DRAFT - Automotive WG 24 Nov 2015 [2]Agenda [2] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-automotive/2015Nov/0017.html See also: [3]IRC log [3] http://www.w3.org/2015/11/24-auto-irc Attendees Present Paul_Boyes, Adam_Crofts, Dave_Jensen, Junichi_Hashimoto, Kaz_Ashimura, Qing_An, Shinjiro_Urata, Yingying_Chen, Peter_Winzell Regrets Chair Paul Scribe kaz Contents * [4]Topics 1. [5]Agenda 2. [6]Publication schedule 3. [7]Implementations and Testing 4. [8]Security update 5. [9]Wrap-up * [10]Summary of Action Items * [11]Summary of Resolutions __________________________________________________________ Agenda paul: spec timeline, security update, etc. -> [12]https://www.w3.org/auto/wg/wiki/Main_Page#Publication_Sched ule publication schedule so far [12] https://www.w3.org/auto/wg/wiki/Main_Page#Publication_Schedule Publication schedule kaz: we should update the timeline ... FPWD already done <paul> [13]https://www.w3.org/auto/wg/wiki/Main_Page [13] https://www.w3.org/auto/wg/wiki/Main_Page kaz: and we're preparing the second draft paul: LC/CR should be later kaz: maybe Q2 2016 paul: so PR and REC for Q4 2016 Implementations and Testing paul: we'll work for the testing and implementation as well next year ... Genivi is doing one peter: started to see how to implement on Chromium ... and outlook how to test it ... collaboration with Genivi would be good paul: right ... willing to take an action to see what would happen in US and Genivi ... we can get some small loop to work together ... making proposal and align things peter: started with Chromium ... how to add interfaces ... you can use the browser itself ... I don't know if that is the best choice, though paul: anybody who work with Chromium could use that, so that's good ... for typical cars peter: think so ... but don't think you can do that on your PCs ... could do if you have some recorder paul: Kevin and Adam? kevin: not typically CAN logs ... but we could do peter: we've been testing head units dave: think ACCESS has something paul: we can record data and use some simulator ... JLR has some mechanism ... let me sense ... have to see definition ... any comments from Urata-san? urata: using some property from dongle ... getting CAN data via the dongle device ... translate CAN data to JSON ... could be a reference model paul: Dave, do you have any experience? dave: open xd has some project ... hardware is open ... proprietary binary format ... convert the output data to JSON paul: also interested in what Google is doing ... how we can get/record data? ... e.g., using chrome ... various possibilities peter: would take an action to see what would be available ... not sure what the actual state paul: most people should consider peter: try to contact Genivi paul: e.g., Gunnar? peter: yes ... will ask him ... the best is something open dave: would see OpenXC paul: anything from JLR? kevin: CAN data database paul: Kevron or somebody from Poland ... non-production implementation ... Peter, you sent an email regarding what the test plan would be peter: part of the implementation I'm doing paul: would people be interested in TF work? peter: working on that everyday paul: is anybody else interested? peter: interested in how ACCESS thinking about testing dave: interested in how the other groups working on testing kaz: usually groups form a TF for testing ... and people work collaboratively for that purpose paul: yes, that' my suggestion ... urata-san, are you willing to join it? urata: interested but have time restriction... ... can contribute very little... paul: would send out a message to ask people for participation ... we can coordinate ... understanding implementation, etc. dave: interested paul: will send an email then ... peter, you can arrange the agenda peter: ok kevin: interested and possibly make contribution kaz: we'll discuss not only implementation experience but also testing mechanism? paul: yeah kaz: we need to generate test assertions and test suite ... also would be nicer to have testing environment dave: automated tools would be helpful and worth consideration Security update junichi: access control ... for auto makers and implementers ... have been looking Web security specs ... manifest is permission list ... focused on icons ... another one is application mechanism ... controlled by implementers ... difficult to use for access control by auto makers ... we should consider approval of developers ... approving specific URL domains ... thinking of some root certificate ... vehicle APIs only approved domains ... would finish by the end of this month ... do you like the idea? paul: yeah junichi: feasibility, urata-san? urata: with the restricted domain list? junichi: usually all APIs are openly used by any domains urata: W3C widgets spec is kind of old ... but handles manifest and packaged apps ... maybe similar to your idea junichi: currently we don't have a packaged format urata: Firefox can use packaged formats ... from app security perspective, that kind of packaged apps would be effective ... maybe one candidate ... would listen to other approaches as well kevin: token? ... basically have an authentication service ... to authenticate and verify the app ... e.g., using password ... facial recognition ... optionally authenticate the vehicle or infrastructure, local government, highway agency, etc. ... assistance to get vehicle location, etc. ... authentication token attached to the HTTP header ... authorizing the access to the data junichi: do we need to introduce a new HTTP header? kevin: two tokens on a request ... one token representing the user and another representing the vehicle or something ... separate tokens are possible junichi: several approaches we discussed during TPAC f2f ... token was one of them ... another was having a proxy kevin: like having a secure proxy junichi: introducing a big mechanism would cost much for implementers ... so would start with light-weight approach kevin: in terms of modification of spec, there would be minimum changes ... not mandatory ... happy to write an idea to access tokens ... not clear how to handle that within the spec, though paul: we could add that as informative notes ... basically we could add that to some informative section kevin: can write some wording ... for an informative section kaz: yes, we can do so paul: makes sense ... Kevin will generate some description ... Hashimoto-san, are you interested in adding something? junichi: yes Wrap-up paul: Peter will work on implementation/testing TF ... myself will work with Adam and Dave for Genivi AdamC: still not much discussion on event handling ... would be great to have input from Urata-san, etc. ... vehicle enum should be changed paul: Adam, you might want to summarize the discussion kaz: should we ask TAG for some more help? paul: Tobie made some suggestion during TPAC kaz: yeah, Generic Sensor style is one possibility paul: can send a message to TAG ... anything else? (nothing) paul: will have the next call next week. [ adjourned ] Summary of Action Items Summary of Resolutions [End of minutes] __________________________________________________________ Minutes formatted by David Booth's [14]scribe.perl version 1.144 ([15]CVS log) $Date: 2015/11/24 17:19:44 $ [14] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm [15] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/ -- Kaz Ashimura, W3C Staff Contact for Auto, WoT, TV, MMI and Geo Tel: +81 3 3516 2504
Received on Tuesday, 24 November 2015 17:25:44 UTC