UlfBj
commented
11 months ago To resolve this it seems we need to address the comment found on https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/768:
We would like to re-iterate the need to fill out the Privacy & Security questionnaire for both Core and Transport, and to write the explainer with a focus around user needs, where users include drivers/occupants of vehicles, not only the vehicle manufacturers and software authors (please see the priority of constituencies). There is some information on how to write a suitable explainer here.
As PING tried to review the VISS Core and Transport specs, we had questions that might be addressed by a more complete architecture document. Addressing @rhiaro's comments in their TAG review may also help us, particularly the suggestion to start with the social impact questionnaire and then do a full write-up for the security and privacy questionnaire. While PING doesn't normally require direct answers to that questionnaire as a prerequisite for its reviews, the TAG does, and I think that would help PING, also.
I note that the most recent Automotive WG recharter added an architecture doc as a deliverable:
I'm flagging this as both privacy-needs-resolution and security-needs-resolution because our reviews, much like the TAG's, can't really be completed with the limited information in front of us.