Re: Attempting to achieve consensus re. wwwivi issue (#223)

I have consensus :). I completely agree with Kevin. Oems will follow and
make their own choices and I think that there is high probability that if
we specify a server name - whatever it might be - it will never be used.

lör 21 okt. 2017 kl. 04:26 skrev Gavigan, Kevin <
kgavigan@jaguarlandrover.com>:

> Hi Ted and Rudi,
>
> Thanks very much for your feedback - I guess we don't quite yet have
> consensus :-)
>
> [From Rudi:]
> If I recall correctly we discussed a w3.org subdomain before. I am not
> sure why it got discarded at the time. However, I am strongly in favor of
> it. Let's move ahead with an Editors Draft with a w3.org
>  subdomain/hostname.
>
> [From Ted]
> Since there are cases that may have multiple VISS implementations in the
> same network, or have client devices introduced, discovery is
> needed. I have the impression the TAG will block us if we do not have it
> and will accept a reasonable fallback default name that will be
> usable in the simpler cases (one VISS service on a fixed network).
>
> Are their any suggestions how we can/should move forward? Ted/Rudi is
> their a statement or phrase or change that we could add that achieve the
> objectives you've succinctly outlined?
>
> If we can't find a technical consensus, to move forward, can we de-scope
> resolving the hostname and simply state that the implementer will specify
> how to connect to the VISS server including how to resolve the <host_name>?
>
> [Although not ideal - believe this isn't quite as big a practical problem
> as first appears: OEMs are very concerned about safety, cybersecurity and
> integrity of the platforms they are creating. As a consequence, I believe
> that in practice client software that is downloaded or included in the
> build for a particular OEMs platform will need to be carefully QA'd to
> ensure it works well on that platform, and is very likely to require some
> configuration information relating to the platform. So adding config info
> to specify how to connect to a particular VIS Server or Discovery Service
> would typically be in addition to other info. ]
>
> Keen to hear the thoughts of the group re. how to move forward...
>
> 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 21 October 2017 at 00:35, Streif, Rudolf <
> rstreif@partner.jaguarlandrover.com> wrote:
>
>> Thank you Kevin and Ted. I really would like to put this to rest now and
>> move on.
>>
>> If I recall correctly we discussed a w3.org subdomain before. I am not
>> sure why it got discarded at the time. However, I am strongly in favor of
>> it.
>>
>> Let's move ahead with an Editors Draft with a w3.org subdomain/hostname.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Rudi
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 11:36 AM, Ted Guild <ted@w3.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Part of the pushback on wwwivi even with .local is that it amounts to
>>> name squatting. We do not own .local so cannot lay claim to a name
>>> there.
>>>
>>> Mark Nottingham asked if we considered a w3.org hostname as the
>>> fallback with discovery still being the preferred method. Typically I
>>> have authority on w3.org subdomains but since it is for a
>>> specification, would need to get Director approval.
>>>
>>> https://github.com/w3c/automotive/issues/233
>>>
>>> Since there are cases that may have multiple VISS implementations in
>>> the same network, or have client devices introduced, discovery is
>>> needed. I have the impression the TAG will block us if we do not have
>>> it and will accept a reasonable fallback default name that will be
>>> usable in the simpler cases (one VISS service on a fixed network).
>>>
>>> Discovery makes things complicated for client applications and may have
>>> other negative implications such as introducing ways to attack the
>>> client. These would need to be worked through. We could publish a
>>> snapshot of the Editors Draft as a Working Draft with a w3.org hostname
>>> (pending approval) while we figure out the discovery issues.
>>>
>>> On Fri, 2017-10-20 at 11:15 +0100, Gavigan, Kevin wrote:
>>> > Hi Gents,
>>> >
>>> > As we know, issue #223 is the only open issue for the VIS
>>> > Specification and it would be great if we could resolve it so that
>>> > the Chairs could propose the the specification moves forward to a
>>> > Candidate Recommendation.
>>> >
>>> > I've added the text copied in blue below to the issue (as part of
>>> > trying to achieve consensus) and would be grateful for your feedback.
>>> >
>>> > We have been struggling for quite a few months to get agreement on
>>> > how to resolve the hostname (wwwivi) issue (#223).
>>> >
>>> > Can I suggest that we resolve the impasse by saying that the
>>> > implementer will document how the hostname is obtained, but suggest a
>>> > default value for the VIS websocket server that is hosted on the IVI
>>> > ECU.
>>> >
>>> > Hence, propose that we add statements like:
>>> >
>>> > /* Start of change */
>>> >
>>> > "A vehicle may have more than one VIS Server that can be accessed by
>>> > a client running on an ECU connected to the in-vehicle network.
>>> >
>>> > The implementer of a VIS Server will document how an in-vehicle
>>> > client can obtain the hostname that is needed to connect to their VIS
>>> > Server instance. This could be using a Discovery Service (that is
>>> > outside of the scope of this specification) or by configuration.
>>> >
>>> > By default, the VIS Server deployed on the In-Vehicle-Infotainment
>>> > system will have the hostname 'ivi.w3.org.local' but the implementer
>>> > may specify a different value'.
>>> >
>>> > /* End of change */
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > We would then change our example statements to use 'ivi.w3.org.local'
>>> > as hostname instead of wwwivi
>>> >
>>> > I'm not entirely sure that adding a '.local' extension to 'w3.org'
>>> > doesn't violate other conventions, but logically it takes account of
>>> > the feedback on the issue (of not cyber-squatting and making clear
>>> > that its a local name)
>>> >
>>> > Believe that in practice an onboard client is likely to have a config
>>> > file (or a Registry or similar) that can be used to define the
>>> > runtime configuration, so if the default is not suitable or is not
>>> > preferred, a different value can be configured prior to deployment of
>>> > the client OR the client could make use of a Discovery Service if the
>>> > implementer has stated in their documentation that this will be
>>> > available.
>>> >
>>> > I didn't want to tightly couple the spec. to a particular Discovery
>>> > protocol or mechanism (as these could evolve separately over time and
>>> > couldn't think of a better compromise or route out of this issue -
>>> > hope the group agrees to the above, but if it doesn't get consensus,
>>> > very happy to consider other alternatives...
>>> >
>>> > [Hopefully, we can settle on this (or something like it) for now, and
>>> > if there are strong views later about an alternative, we re-open the
>>> > issue at that point]
>>> >
>>> > 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
>>> --
>>> Ted Guild <ted@w3.org>
>>> W3C Systems Team
>>> http://www.w3.org
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> *Rudolf J Streif*
>> System Architect - Open Source Initiative
>> Open Source Technology Centre
>>
>> *M:* +1.619.631.5383
>> *Email:*  rstreif@partner.jaguarlandrover.com
>>
>>
>>
>> UK: G/26/2 G02 Building 523, Engineering Centre, Gaydon, Warwick, CV35 ORR
>> US: 1419 NW 14th Ave, Portland, OR 97209
>> <https://maps.google.com/?q=US:+1419+NW+14th+Ave,+Portland,+OR+97209&entry=gmail&source=g>
>> jaguar.com | landrover.com
>> -------------------
>> Business Details:
>> Jaguar Land Rover Limited
>> Registered Office: Abbey Road, Whitley, Coventry CV3 4LF
>> Registered in England No: 1672070
>>
>> This e-mail and any attachments contain confidential information for a
>> specific individual and purpose.  The information is private and privileged
>> and intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed.
>> If you are not the intended recipient, please e-mail us immediately.  We
>> apologise for any inconvenience caused but you are hereby notified that any
>> disclosure, copying or distribution or the taking of any action in reliance
>> on the information contained herein is strictly prohibited.
>>
>> This e-mail does not constitute an order for goods or services unless
>> accompanied by an official purchase order.
>>
>>
>