I'm not going to respond in detail, but I think that this quote cuts to the nub.
On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 10:09 PM, wrote:
> [W3C Auto] A number of Automotive Manufacturers and Tier 1 suppliers have
> contributed to the ideas in the specification which focusses on exposing
> vehicle signals and
On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 8:33:37 PM UTC+1, David Baron wrote:
> The W3C is proposing a new charter for:
>
> Automotive Working Group
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2016Oct/0003.html
> https://www.w3.org/2014/automotive/charter-2016.html
>
> Mozilla has the oppo
LGTM
On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 5:22 PM, L. David Baron wrote:
> OK, here's a reformulation that takes a somewhat stronger position
> (mainly by checking the other box, and adding the paragraph at the
> end).
>
> -David
>
>
> [X] opposes this Charter and requests that this group not be
> creat
OK, here's a reformulation that takes a somewhat stronger position
(mainly by checking the other box, and adding the paragraph at the
end).
-David
[X] opposes this Charter and requests that this group not be
created [Formal Objection] (your details below).
We're concerned enough about the
On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 12:09 AM, L. David Baron wrote:
>
> So, first, it's not clear to me which option to check in the review.
> I think the basis of these comments is somewhere between:
>
> [X] suggests changes to this Charter, and only supports the
> proposal if the changes are adopted [
So, first, it's not clear to me which option to check in the review.
I think the basis of these comments is somewhere between:
[X] suggests changes to this Charter, and only supports the
proposal if the changes are adopted [Formal Objection] (your
details below).
and:
[ ] opposes th
Ekr,
This sounds to me like there are sufficient reasons to formally object
to this charter, and as Martin points out, a special case of IoT/WoT
(with additional concerns!).
David,
Thus I too think we should formally object, link to our previous
formal objection of the WoT charter (since nearly
I share Martin's concerns here...
There's fairly extensive evidence of security vulnerabilities in
vehicular systems that can lead to serious safety issues (see:
http://www.autosec.org/publications.html), so more than usual
attention needs to be paid to security in this context.
In fairness, a lo
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
observations:
Exposing the level of information that they claim to want to expose
needs more priv
The W3C is proposing a new charter for:
Automotive Working Group
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2016Oct/0003.html
https://www.w3.org/2014/automotive/charter-2016.html
Mozilla has the opportunity to send comments or objections through
Monday, November 7. However, I hop
10 matches
Mail list logo
