W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-automotive@w3.org > September 2017

Re: Standardized endpoint name for VISS (was: Re: Request to make the issue list for VISS)

From: Gunnar Andersson <gandersson@genivi.org>
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2017 10:46:21 +0200
Message-ID: <1505205981.6657.34.camel@genivi.org>
To: "Gavigan, Kevin" <kgavigan@jaguarlandrover.com>
Cc: 이원석 <wonsuk.lee@etri.re.kr>, "Crofts, Adam" <acrofts1@jaguarlandrover.com>, public-automotive <public-automotive@w3.org>

On Tue, 2017-09-12 at 09:23 +0100, Gavigan, Kevin wrote:
> Hi Gunnar,
> Thanks, you raise and make some very pertinent points.

OK, good.  I was hoping someone would go through each of them and just
confirm that what I said was true, so far.  Because this is a process to
lead to a conclusion.  But I suppose maybe you agreed now, implicitly?

> Suggest that another important point is:  What if an OEM wants to install
> two or more VIS Servers on the same vehicle network.

Yes even name resolution of a single well known name would not solve that. 
You'd have to either have a discovery protocol of some sort (and then
zeroconf comes to mind -- yes I now saw the feedback Ted relayed, mentioning
mDNS, which is the same thing IIRC?)

Or you would leave that up to OEM-specific configuration that is somehow
passed from system to "app" when the app is launched.  

I think there's a limit to how far you will be able to here specify the
exact application standard, which includes APIs like that between OS (or
"application manager") and app.  But a single well-known name might be
useful still.

In fact... come to think of it - is this thing perhaps better defined in a
different specification, one which specifies an (automotive) web application
standard, rather than in the server specification?

> For example, the designers of the instrument cluster might decide to
> implement the VISS specification and install a VIS Server in the cluster
> in order to get vehicle speed, engine rpm, fuel levels etc and display
> them to the user.

That's why I asked.  Is this assuming a local server, or a server
"anywhere".  Is it simply intended to be a well-known name to address the
*default* VIS server, wherever that exists in the entire routable

> Almost in parallel, the designers of the new Infotainment System decide to
> implement the VISS specification and add a VIS Server to the electronic
> control unit (ECU) that hosts the Infotainment System.
> Does anyone on the thread have views on how best to address this - or
> should we remove references to wwwivi and state that implementors will
> document how to connect to the VIS Server

I still think you might be doing something useful if the specification
requires (or perhaps recommends?) a well-known name for the default server. 
But I'm trying to really get to the root characteristics of what that thing
is supposed to mean, before forming a final opinion.

- Gunnar

Gunnar Andersson <gandersson@genivi.org>
Development Lead
GENIVI Alliance
Received on Tuesday, 12 September 2017 08:46:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:06:03 UTC