More architectural description

[samuelweiler]

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:

High level architecture for information flows to facilitate understanding of the different standard and proprietary solutions being used within the industry and to further discussions on data privacy considerations throughout

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.

[UlfBj]

To resolve this it seems we need to address the comment found on w3ctag/design-reviews#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.

https://www.w3.org/TR/security-privacy-questionnaire/

https://w3ctag.github.io/societal-impact-questionnaire/