#234: Vehicle Information Service Specification (VISS) CR

Visit on Github.

Opened Mar 6, 2018

こんにちはTAG！

I'm requesting a TAG review of:

Further details (optional):

You should also know that...

TAG has reviewed issues with VISS. We would appreciate a formal review of the CR version of the spec.

We'd prefer the TAG provide feedback as (please select one):

  • open issues in our Github repo for each point of feedback
  • open a single issue in our Github repo for the entire review
  • leave review feedback as a comment in this issue and @-notify [github usernames]

Discussions

Discussed Mar 20, 2018 (See Github)

Peter: Hadley isn't here, so let's punt.

Comment by @torgo Jul 26, 2018 (See Github)

We welcome the change regarding discovery but feel it would be better to require discovery of services vs. "encouraging".

Comment by @hadleybeeman Jul 26, 2018 (See Github)

It would help us (as well as other people working on the web platform) work with you if you'd create an explainer, as a high-level explanation of what you're trying to accomplish, how you're doing it and what other approaches you've discarded.

If you haven't written explainers before, this explains what we as a community have found especially helpful.

Also an enumeration of the use cases you are aiming to support would be wonderful. I didn't see them in your spec nor in your wiki. Thanks!

Comment by @hadleybeeman Jul 26, 2018 (See Github)

Pinging @rstreif @drkevg @INRIX-paul-boyes @acrofts84 @tguild. (I know you asked for comments in your repo, but these are pre-discussions.)

Comment by @ylafon Jul 26, 2018 (See Github)

We also note that the use of Websocket leads to extra care in the design of the protocol it is based on. Moving to a protocol based on h2 would be good for the next version.

Comment by @tguild Jul 27, 2018 (See Github)

I took a pass at an explainer to provide background and asked the group to make contributions or comments.

https://github.com/w3c/automotive/blob/gh-pages/services-explainer.md

Comment by @hadleybeeman Oct 30, 2018 (See Github)

Hi Automotive WG! We are reviewing this issue at our TAG face-to-face in Paris, knowing that @ylafon met with you at TPAC last week.

What is the status of this doc? I can see that it's still at CR... How widely implemented is it?

And what would be useful from us at this point?

Comment by @hadleybeeman Jan 8, 2019 (See Github)

Hi @INRIX-paul-boyes @rstreif, @drkevg, @acrofts84... Happy new year from the TAG!

Just checking on your progress here... We were hopeful you could check on our questions (above) about your progress and let us know how we could be helpful. Thanks!

Comment by @tguild Jan 9, 2019 (See Github)

Hi @hadleybeeman,

HNY to you too. VISS is in CR as we get more implementation experience. There are several known and rumored from Melco, ACCESS+KDDI, Renesas, Bosch, Visteon+JLR and Volvo offhand as either PoC, dev environments, or production. We want to get more feedback and based on it possibly make revisions before finalizing. With a significant implementation heading toward production and an accompanying report expected we will likely try to advance to PR in the comming months.

The Auto WG is focusing more on a next generation with additional capabilities and desire to handle multiple protocols. @ylafon did meet with us at TPAC and dissuaded us from trying to go protocol-less as proven to be problematic in the past (SOAP/Web Services cited as example) and to keep an eye on emerging changes to HTTP.

For now I believe we are set with the TAG and have had prompt feedback post TPAC on gh issue we pinged @ylafon on.

Discussed Jan 15, 2019 (See Github)

Dan: I don't have a car.

Hadley: I haven't driven a car in ages! (But we have a fresh perspective.) Summary: They couldn't break out of the manufacturing idea; couldn't handle the constantly-updating idea. [Gives brief history of issue]

  • Wanted to bundle car sensors, but there were complications... wanted to push them to HTTP to handle diverse topologies, etc.
  • Clarified what a phone that plugs into the car could get access to; infotainment system capabilities.
  • The web has many of the same primitives they were trying to re-invent...
  • Issue on liability; if 3rd party builds a poor infotainment system, that has liability on the manufacture.

Dan: Any updates since we last looked at this?

Hadley: The crew is in CR and want more feedback/revisions before finalizing. Have pinged Yves on a different issue... May be able to close this out (process wise), but should ensure we can circle back later.

Yves: There is danger to them re-inventing the wheel--protocol-wise. I've been prompting them over time. I will communicate to Ted to have them send issues our way over time.

Discussed Jan 22, 2019 (See Github)

Peter: do we have a wrap-up for this?

Sangwhan: May need to check at F2F?

Comment by @cynthia May 22, 2019 (See Github)

@hadleybeeman and I discussed this during the F2F, we are happy to hear that everything is satisfactory. Let us know when you have other things that might need our attention, and apologies that this took so long.