[auto-wg/bg] minutes from the mini f2f meeting at CES - 5 January 2017

available at:
  https://www.w3.org/2017/01/05-auto-minutes.html

also as text below.

Kazuyuki

---
   [1]W3C

      [1] http://www.w3.org/

                               - DRAFT -

                  Mini f2f of Automotive WG/BG at CES

05 Jan 2017

   [2]Agenda

      [2]
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-automotive/2017Jan/0022.html

   See also: [3]IRC log

      [3] http://www.w3.org/2017/01/05-auto-irc

Attendees

   Present
          Ted, Kaz, Hira, Mike, Paul, PatrickL, SongLi, Rudi,
          Wonsuk, Powell, Urata

   Regrets
          Peter, PatrickB

   Chair
          Rudi, Paul

   Scribe
          ted, kaz

Contents

     * [4]Topics
         1. [5]Plan for next specification round including VW ViWi
         2. [6]OCF Demo
         3. [7]Discussion on Chaigning the spec name
         4. [8]Client spec
         5. [9]Testing framework
         6. [10]Meeting plan
         7. [11]GitHub isssues on Testing
     * [12]Summary of Action Items
     * [13]Summary of Resolutions
     __________________________________________________________

   <ted> scribenick: ted

   <scribe> scribenick: ted

Plan for next specification round including VW ViWi

   PatrickL: I will let you know what PatrickB has been up to. He
   has an open source test/mock server people can use
   ... we have not been able to do extensive testing yet
   ... we are not sure what to use for testing the web socket
   subscription part

   -> [14]https://github.com/wzr1337/viwiServer Mock server code
   repo

     [14] https://github.com/wzr1337/viwiServer

   ->
   [15]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-automotive/2017
   Jan/0021.html PatrickB's note

     [15]
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-automotive/2017Jan/0021.html

   Ted: Peter or Kevin might have some ideas for testing the
   socket piece

   Paul: we have some code (at OpenCar) for testing web sockets
   and think Urata-san said W3C's test framework can do some
   rudimentary web socket testing

   PatrickL: we haven't found anything that would let us put in a
   test suite to go against web sockets

   Paul: I'll strip out the proprietary pieces and make our socket
   tester available on github and have received permission to do
   so

   Kaz: We also need such a testing framework for VISS as well and
   think Urata is working on such a module

   Paul: that is my recollection as well

   <inserted> [ Note that the title of the server spec has been
   changed to "Vehicle Information Service Spec" (VISS). See also:
   [16]https://github.com/w3c/automotive/pull/114 and
   [17]https://www.w3.org/2016/12/20-auto-minutes.html#item02 ]

     [16] https://github.com/w3c/automotive/pull/114
     [17] https://www.w3.org/2016/12/20-auto-minutes.html#item02

   Hira: Urata has already made a test module prototype

   PatrickL: We have spent some more time looking at VSS as well
   ... when comparing both we have to first have a clear picture
   of the use cases. Both have their advantages but first be clear
   on needs and what we are trying to solve

   <kaz> ted: @@@explanation on TAG, HTTP2, etc@@@

   Ted asks if VW has looked at VSS at Genivi that VISS refers to

   <kaz> [18]VISS

     [18] https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/WD-vehicle-information-service-20161020

   <kaz> [19]VSS

     [19] https://github.com/GENIVI/vehicle_signal_specification

   PatrickL: it is a good model for signals data but maybe trying
   to get a full view of state of vehicle might be a bit counter
   intuitive
   ... my opinion does not really matter and it would be best to
   have input from developers

OCF Demo

   <kaz> [20]demo video

     [20] https://youtu.be/V_r3L1b5qs8

   Paul: Wonsuk was telling me on the elevator about the OCF demo

   Ted: Rudi gave the youtube link and broadcast it on Tuesday's
   call

   Wonsuk: demo will be running the next 4 days, provides a
   digital dashboard
   ... we have complimentary apps for iOS and android. we have a
   OCF server providing VISS to complient devices
   ... we have a smart watch device running on Tizen
   ... the android app can track a vehicle real time
   ... Sanjeev has a newer video which I'll run during the
   showcase in a couple hours

   <kaz> scribenick: kaz

   ted: a task force working on use cases, comparisons, seek
   developer and architect input are good steps. i'll start a wiki
   of notes and send mail next week

   <kaz> scribenick: ted

   Paul: one thing that came up in the BG as a result of ViWi
   being made public was it peaked AGL interest
   ... we will be meeting with them here tonight
   ... including them getting more involved

   Ted: we spoke with them in the past, hoping to engage them. all
   were in agreement but it didn't get started

   Paul: @@a is trying to go both Android + HTML5. @@b/@@c have
   similar approaches and would be good to get them on board
   ... @@d has a program that people can use a live vehicle and
   their app provided they are a registered developer and have a
   vin number

   Ted: I also heard but cannot confirm that SDLink might use VSS

   [unclear]

   Paul: I know they are web sockets, Google isn't turning up
   anything on them and VSS

   Kaz: as mentioned in Burlingame, Web of Things WG might be
   worth talking to

   Ted: they are doing things fairly differently than either of
   our approaches. I can see their work sitting on top of ours
   much like Sanjeev is already doing in OCF

   Rudi: Sanjeev has been doing this within OCF+Genivi
   ... the OCF bridge provides VSS, and makes the vehicle an OCF
   object
   ... that brings web expertise, IoT and automotive (Genivi)
   together

   Ted: Alan and Dave are going to be meeting with OCF this week
   as there is interest from both sides in better coordination
   ... I think we should do our own approach and let WoT do the
   same as OCF and we can focus on bridging

   Kaz: I'm not suggesting the Automotive group and VIWI need to
   use the WoT approach.
   ... However, WoT is discussing interface between server and
   client for IoT, and there is some overlap.
   ... Also they've been working with OCF.
   ... So discussion with WoT guys would be useful.
   ... I think I should join the meeting with OCF this week as
   well.

   Paul: new charter isn't on wiki, shouldn't we update it?

   Ted: yep

   [21]Updated Charter

     [21] https://www.w3.org/2014/automotive/charter-2016.html

   [22]WG Wiki

     [22] https://www.w3.org/auto/wg/wiki/Main_Page#Specifications

Discussion on Chaigning the spec name

   [discussion on changing the spec name]

   <kaz> [23]previous discussion

     [23] https://www.w3.org/2016/12/20-auto-minutes.html#item02

   <kaz> [24]Server Spec

     [24]
https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/WD-vehicle-information-service-20161020/

   <kaz> [25]Kevin's issue

     [25] https://github.com/w3c/automotive/pull/114

   Rudi: wonders if we need to chang the spec names on the Charter
   as well

   Kaz: we can change the title [on the spec]
   ... we don't have to update the charter itself

   Paul: back to the timeline, we hit our initial milestone for
   VSSS FPWD, next is CR in April

   Rudi reads definition of Candidate Rec from Process document

   <kaz> [26]Process Doc

     [26] https://www.w3.org/2015/Process-20150901/#candidate-rec

Client spec

   Paul: what about the client spec?

   Ted: I suggested Powell pause as I believe Visteon is joining
   and interested in that piece

   Paul: Powell and Vin.li will be demoing based on their approach
   and hopefully we will learn more about others' interest soon

   Powell: server spec changes will dramatically impact the client
   one. I had to implement a test server in order to work on the
   JS library

   Paul: should we start cataloging issues?

   <kaz> +1

   Powell: I am in my notes. Request ID will make sense
   ... I'll throw some up on issues list

   Songli: mentions running into some similar problems

   <kaz> scribenick: kaz

   paul: do we want to have a companion document?

   powell: someone should go into the spec
   ... how to handle ID
   ... we don't need to add anything but should clarify how to
   deal with the server spec

   <ted> scribenick: ted

   Songli: we can make either a simple rudimentary server or a
   more complicated nuanced one
   ... we may come up with some best practices for implementers
   based on our experiences

   Paul: I encourage you both to start submitting issues based on
   what you are seeing

   <kaz> +1 to start with some guideline/best practice/primer kind
   of document

   Powell: everything pretty much works

   Paul: if we can keep to the timeline for CR in April then we
   can announce it at the next Genivi AMM
   ... next milestone after that is Proposed Recommendation
   ... three months of handling comments

   <kaz> scribenick: kaz

   paul: Viston is joining and interested in the spec
   ... so we should hold on the work on VIAS (client spec) for a
   while
   ... we clearly will have the CR in April

   powell: two different approaches on notation, JS vs WebIDL

   paul: VIAS has very specific scope and we should stuck with
   that

   rudi: agree
   ... let's get moving forward
   ... don't see mutual exclucivity between JS and WebIDL

   powell: what is the expectation for implementations?
   ... mapping messages defined by the server spec to JS?

   rudi: good as the starting point

   paul: guessing what Visteon is doing is different from our
   definition but we'll see

   [27]Updated Charter

     [27] https://www.w3.org/2014/automotive/charter-2016.html

   [28]VIAS Guidelines

     [28]
https://www.w3.org/auto/wg/wiki/Vehicle_Information_Service_Specification#JavaScript_Library_Interface_Guidelines

   paul: I'm fine with WebIDL
   ... we should put our proposals on GitHub

   powell: will do

   paul: anybody who can help Powell, please speak up

Testing framework

   paul: next, Urata-san, do you want to share information about
   Testing?

   urata: not much progress since the last meeting

   -> [29]https://www.w3.org/2017/01/03-auto-minutes.html Jan 3
   minutes

     [29] https://www.w3.org/2017/01/03-auto-minutes.html

   <urata_access>
   [30]https://github.com/aShinjiroUrata/web-platform-tests/commit
   s/dev-urata-vsss-test

     [30]
https://github.com/aShinjiroUrata/web-platform-tests/commits/dev-urata-vsss-test

   <urata_access> this is the starting point of creating test
   framework

   <urata_access> have some more test cases in my local
   environment

   <urata_access> going to add test cases according to the test
   assertion list

Meeting plan

   paul: anything else?

   rudi: meeting plan?

   -> [31]https://www.genivi.org/ GENIVI AMM on 9-12 May 2017 in
   Birmingham UK

     [31] https://www.genivi.org/

   wonsuk: we need to send emails to the group

   kaz: sorry but need clarification for the minutes
   ... are we talking about the collocated meeting with GENIVI
   AMM?

   paul: two topics here, (1) collocated meeting and (2) VIWI as a
   big topic for the BG

GitHub isssues on Testing

   hira: one proposal
   ... I've made a proposal on Implementation Report Plan
   ... would like to have several issues on GitHub
   ... want to have separate issues for 4 topics

   paul: yes, you should

   kaz: yes, if it's easier to handle your issues, you should
   create those separate issues

   paul: +1

   rudi: have good press conference and demos at CES!

   [ adjourned ]

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

   [End of minutes]
     __________________________________________________________


    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [32]scribe.perl version
    1.148 ([33]CVS log)
    $Date: 2017/01/06 17:56:58 $

     [32] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
     [33] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/