- From: Gunnar Andersson <gandersson@genivi.org>
- Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2017 10:50:29 +0200
- To: 이원석 <wonsuk.lee@etri.re.kr>, "Gavigan, Kevin" <kgavigan@jaguarlandrover.com>
- Cc: "Crofts, Adam" <acrofts1@jaguarlandrover.com>, public-automotive <public-automotive@w3.org>
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 > >
Received on Thursday, 7 September 2017 08:51:25 UTC