Re: WebPerf WG triage call reminder - May 16th @ 11am PST

Minutes from the call are now published
<https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vSN934GLZMjtzPUI541BxPY1Wdv2wlkJp4SBOIl-1XtBQFx0jZ-eymRiqyGrIMWNG5_U_ns3jKoxoLv/pub>
and
its video recording is available <https://youtu.be/f7uq1TosLYU>. Copying
the minutes here for safe keeping:

WebPerfWG call - May 16th 2019
Participants

Will Hawkins, Steven Bougon, Maxime Villancourt, Thomas Kelly, Gilles
Dubuc, Ilya Grigorik, Benjamin De Kosnik, Nic Jansma, Phillipe Le Hegaret,
Markus Strange, Nicolas Pena, Todd Reifsteck, Yoav Weiss

Date for next design call?

   - 11AM PST on May 28th — conflict for Mozilla folks
   - Going with: 1PM PST on May 29th

F2F

   - June 11th @ Google Mountain View office — full day event
   - Looking into adding an additional hackathon day
   - Yoav will setup an agenda doc to collect ideas
   - Remote? Yes, we’re planning to stream
   - Guests and observers are welcome

HR-Time

Phillippe: revisiting the discussion on privacy and high resolution time

Yoav: we added a list of potential mitigations and recommendations in the
spec (e.g. jitter)

… the proposal to mandate permission api, did not get traction from any
implementers

Philippe: “is it OK to not expose Navigation Timing?”

Yoav: I guess, but that’s orthogonal

Yoav: We have two green implementations, all issues are closed

… can we advance to PR?

Group resolution: advance

Yoav: AI, send ping to the group with resolution (10 working days to
comment)

Overall health

Yoav: lots of specs have editors that moved on

AI: Yoav+Ilya+Todd to review list of specs and see where we’re missing
active editors
sendBeacon

Yoav: In CR, no open issues, but we don’t have two green implementations
Reporting + NEL

Douglas: fell behind but catching up now and we have another contributor
helping, our plan is to triage in the next few weeks

Idea: could/should we have a hackathon on a day after F2F?

   - Mozilla: we could attend and probably have two people
   - Nicolas, Douglas: ditto

supportedEntryTypes

https://github.com/w3c/performance-timeline/issues/117
<https://www.google.com/url?q=https://github.com/w3c/performance-timeline/issues/117&sa=D&ust=1558111446327000>

npm: open question on registration list vs a hook

… with the list you have all the entry types in performance timeline

… however, with registration hook it’s easier for implementers to see when
to add entries

yoav: from a WG perspective, a registration list would imply that each new
spec adding an entry would require updating performance timeline

philippe: making performance timeline a living spec is something we could
look at next year

… for now, we can move the actual lxst into a note that enumerates the list

todd + philippe: nod

Example:   https://w3c.github.io/trace-context-protocols-registry/
<https://www.google.com/url?q=https://w3c.github.io/trace-context-protocols-registry/&sa=D&ust=1558111446328000>

Conclusion (npm): change the implementation, instead of registration hook,
move to list. The list itself will be a working group that we’ll link to.
In that note we will also include relevant flags for each entry type
behavior.

        Philippe: I’ll draft the note and start a repo.

https://github.com/w3c/server-timing/issues/61
<https://www.google.com/url?q=https://github.com/w3c/server-timing/issues/61&sa=D&ust=1558111446329000>

AI: Yoav to ping Charlie about setting up review w/ Sec/Privacy group.

Yoav: two implementations, close to moving forward

… should above review block CR?

Philippe: block CR

Yoav: OK.


On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 3:35 AM Yoav Weiss <yoav@yoav.ws> wrote:

> Hey all!
>
> As discussed on the last call, let's talk this Thursday about issues!
>
> On the agenda
> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/10dz_7QM5XCNsGeI63R864lF9gFqlqQD37B4q8Q46LMM/edit?pli=1#heading=h.z70m44vqh4e1>
> at the moment we have:
>
>    - HR-Time - let's ship it!
>    - F2F - we finally have a date. Let's discuss the rough agenda
>    - Issue debt - taking a high-level view of our current state, some
>    specs require more triage than others. Let's talk about spec ownership and
>    how we can drive those open issues down.
>
> For the specs that I own, I'll try to add a few more specific issues that
> require discussion. I encourage other editors to do the same.
>
> Please join our call <https://meet.google.com/agz-fbji-spp?hs=122>. As a
> reminder, the call is a public forum and we'll be recording and publishing
> it.
>
> Cheers! :)
> Yoav
>