This seems to be a more specific instance of WoT. As such, the goals
are much clearer here. While some of the concerns with the WoT
charter apply (security in particular!), here are a few additional
Exposing the level of information that they claim to want to expose
needs more privacy treatment than just a casual mention of the PIG.
Websockets? Protocol? Both of these are red flags. Protocol
development is an entirely different game to APIs and the choice of
websockets makes me question the judgment of the people involved. Of
particular concern is how the group intends to manage interactions
with SOP. Do they intend to allow the web at large to connect to
parts of the car? The security architecture is worrying in its lack
If this proceeds, the naming choice (wwwivi) will have to change. It
is not OK to register a new GTLD (see
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6761). A similar mistake was made
recently in the IETF, and it was ugly. For people interested in the
gory details, I can provide more details offline.
On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 6:32 AM, L. David Baron <dba...@dbaron.org> wrote:
> The W3C is proposing a new charter for:
> Automotive Working Group
> Mozilla has the opportunity to send comments or objections through
> Monday, November 7. However, I hope to be able to complete the
> comments by Tuesday, October 25.
> Please reply to this thread if you think there's something we should
> say as part of this charter review, or if you think we should
> support or oppose it.
> Note that this is a new working group. I don't know of anyone from
> Mozilla being involved in the discussions that led to this charter.
> 𝄞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 𝄂
> 𝄢 Mozilla https://www.mozilla.org/ 𝄂
> Before I built a wall I'd ask to know
> What I was walling in or walling out,
> And to whom I was like to give offense.
> - Robert Frost, Mending Wall (1914)
> dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform mailing list