[minutes] July 21 2022 meeting

Hi,

The minutes of our meeting held today (Jul 21) are available at:
   https://www.w3.org/2022/07/21-web-networks-minutes.html

and copied as text below.

Dom

                      Web & Networks Interest Group

21 July 2022

    [2]Agenda. [3]IRC log.

       [2] 
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-networks-ig/2022Jun/0001.html
       [3] https://www.w3.org/2022/07/21-web-networks-irc

Attendees

    Present
           ChrisN, DanD, Dapeng, Huaqi, LarryZhao, Louay,
           Louay_Bassbouss, MichaelMcCool, PeipeiGuo, Song, Sudeep

    Regrets
           -

    Chair
           DanD, Song, Sudeep

    Scribe
           cpn, dom

Contents

     1. [4]Edge Computing Workstream
     2. [5]TPAC planning
     3. [6]Updates on other topics

Meeting minutes

    Sudeep: our focus will be on edge computing today given the
    current momentum behind this topic
    … our goal is to identify next steps, in particular towards
    TPAC
    … we'll also talk about the upcoming TPAC 2022
    … and a summary of our existing & new topics in the IG

   Edge Computing Workstream

    [7]Edge Computing Exploration github repo

       [7] https://github.com/w3c/edge-computing-web-exploration/

    [8]Client-Edge-Cloud coordination Use Cases and Requirements

       [8] https://w3c.github.io/edge-computing-web-exploration/

    Max: I've updated the document based on the comments from the
    last meeting
    … I'll review these updates
    … and Michael sent a PR earlier today that we can also discuss
    … We've identified editors (separately from contributors)
    … the co-editors are Michael, Song and myself
    … There was also a request to highlight the benefits of
    offloading to the cloud or edge in the use cases
    … which we've done through use cases - e.g. in the Machine
    Learning use cases involve really intensive computing which
    depending on the underlying hardware may imply very different
    outcomes
    … e.g. whether they have a GPU or not

    Michael: maybe a section summarizing the benefits would be
    useful

    Max: +1

    Max: another comment was a suggestion to refine the gap
    analysis
    … it now emphasizes what the current specs cannot support

    Michael: I think the bullet points in section 5.2 may deserve
    to be a section standing on its own

    Max: let's iterate on this indeed

    Max: another update is about the the conclusion & way forward
    section (8.3)
    … we list 2 options: divide the work across existing relevant
    Working Groups,
    … or we establish a dedicated Working Group for this problem
    … the 2nd option helps with a unified architecture - we can
    coordinate with other groups as needed
    … if we agree this is the right approach, we could proceed with
    writing a charter

    Michael: I think we need to list the potential deliverables
    … this would help establish which may need a new Working Group
    … it's quite likely this would be needed, but there will also
    be a need to coordinate with other groups

    Sudeep: we also need to identify the stakeholders who would
    need to support the work & a potential charter

    <McCool> (since I interrupted so much, I will be quiet for a
    while ;)

    cpn: I think we still need to improve the understanding of
    requirements before proposing a WG
    … the exploratory work may not be a good fit for a WG

    Dom: Agree, CGs are more a place for the exploration
    … Overall I think mapping proposed solutions to new specs or
    changes to existing specs, protocols, APIs, there's room for
    pre-standardisation work

    max: I agree with your points - this needs further work before
    proposing a WG
    … a CG sounds like an interesting option

    Song: +1 on iterating in the IG or in a CG to draw a clearer
    picture of what we need to build
    … having a single group would help making progress rather than
    split across groups

    Michael: +1 on more incubation; I think the document itself
    also needs more iteration
    … getting more and broader input on it would be good
    … a W3C workshop might be a good way to achieve this
    … a CG would be one way to do so but it has downsides, but an
    IG is already a good fit

    Dom: I agree having a single group would be more comfortable
    … When we get to the right stage for standardisation, I expect
    we'd need to split it across multiple groups
    … e.g., WASM work going to that WG
    … We should look at it as a collection of useful pieces, rather
    than something that must be adopted all together
    … An option 1 approach may be more likely to get to where we
    want
    … On getting broader input, the first thing to do would be to
    publish as an IG note, which signals the group wants input on
    it
    … When the PR is merged, are we ready to get broader attention
    on the document?
    … For TPAC, I was thinking more of an informal workshop, could
    lead to a formal workshop later
    … Use TPAC as a way to gather presentations on the topic,
    prerecorded, different perspectives, to add to our thinking
    … Relevant to how edge computes intersects with the web. A
    formal workshop probably needs a bigger sense from the
    community

    Michael: I think the document needs a bit more work before
    being published as an IG note - but I think we could there by
    the time of TPAC

    sudeep: +1 on gathering input from beyond the group
    … a mini-workshop or a breakout session at TPAC might help with
    that
    … this sounds like pre-requisites before a WG

    max: I can look into creating a CG if there is support

    sudeep: there will be demos from Max, Louay around edge (not
    necessarily edge offload)
    … maybe we should look at organizing a formal workshop before
    the end of our charter
    … and use TPAC, this document as drivers toward that

    Piers: any input from existing companies that provide edge
    services such as cloudflare, fastly
    … (beyond Alibaba that presumably has some as well)

    Max: Alibaba has an edge service, but not an implementation of
    the proposed solution which would need more standardization
    support

    Dom: I hope we could attract those companies to a workshop
    … I agree they're critical to making this successful, we need
    at least two

    Michael: +1 - we need to plan on how to attract these companies
    which have solutions pretty similar to what is being discussed
    … we should make sure the stakeholders listed in the business
    categories need to be well-represented

    Louay: our demo is focused on edge in the context of 5G
    … we showed it at the Media Web Symposium - I plan to record it
    as a demo

    Dom: Breakouts are more limited this year, 1 hour for broad
    visiblilty, but probably not 2 hours
    … Could have a longer timeslot for the TPAC meeting, that could
    be used for demos, or discussion
    … The number of people would be more limited, but would give
    more leeway for scheduling

   TPAC planning

    Sudeep: WNIG meeting on Sep 13, then breakouts on Sep 14

    Michael: afternoon slots won't work well for remote
    participation to breakouts

    Sudeep: maybe that points toward doing the mini-workshop post
    TPAC

    Dom: The last breakout slot at 4:30 could be possible for
    people in Asia?

    Sudeep: our agenda at TPAC will be structure around updates to
    our workstreams, with plenty of time for open discussion (with
    room for a possible guest speaker)
    … it'll be posted on the wiki

   Updates on other topics

    Piers: the work on monitoring in IETF is on hold, but there is
    work happening in CTA WAVE around this

    Chris: I'm talking with that group in the context of the Media
    & Entertainment IG - let's approach them together

    <McCool> (sorry, I have to go, another call with SDW...)

    Sudeep: not much progress on link performance prediction;
    haven't seen much progress on priority control either
    … on Edge Computing, good progress on our offloading; not
    seeing lots of progress in intersection between MEC & Web
    … Not much anew on network emulation either
    … New topics have emerged recently: exposing network slicing
    (which are now exposed e.g. in Android)
    … We also received feedback from the Games CG on the network
    APIs gap e.g. for download progress information

    Dom: the Winter CG is looking at making browser APIs into
    non-browser runtimes such as node, deno, cloudflare worker
    … possibly interesting overlap with our offloading explorations

    Sudeep: also potential interest around multicast receiver for
    Web using edge nodes

     Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by
     [9]scribe.perl version 192 (Tue Jun 28 16:55:30 2022 UTC).

       [9] https://w3c.github.io/scribe2/scribedoc.html

Received on Thursday, 21 July 2022 14:09:14 UTC