- From: Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2022 17:33:32 +0100
- To: "'public-networks-ig@w3.org'" <public-networks-ig@w3.org>
Hi,
The minutes of our meeting held today (March 4th) are available at:
https://www.w3.org/2022/03/04-web-networks-minutes.html
and copied as text below.
Dom
Web & Networks IG #21: Edge Computing
04 March 2022
[2]Agenda. [3]IRC log.
[2]
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-networks-ig/2022Mar/att-0000/Edge_Web-WNIG-Mar2022-McCool.pdf
[3] https://www.w3.org/2022/03/04-web-networks-irc
Attendees
Present
DanDruta, Dom, LarryZhao, MichaelMcCool, PeipeiGuo,
PiersO'Hanlon, SongXu, Sudeep, Uaqi, Max, Eric
Regrets
-
Chair
Dan, Song, Sudeep
Scribe
dom
Contents
1. [4]General updates
1. [5]joint meeting with Games CG
2. [6]Edge Computing and the Web
Meeting minutes
Sudeep: Welcome to this new IG call; there has been activity
over the past 2 months on which it's useful to share updates
… today's agenda includes general updates, and then a focus on
edge computing
… first a presentation on the value proposition of offload for
stakeholders
… then a review of the use cases and requirements with PRs that
have been raised
General updates
Sudeep: TPAC may be an hybrid event in September, with physical
location in Vancouver
… any thoughts on TPAC, feasibility for a potential IG meeting?
Michael: I'm based in Canada so can reach Vancouver fairly
easily, but only meaningful if there is enough people showing
up
… maybe simpler to stay to virtual only
eric: my personal feeling: the past 2 years of zoom meetings
have impacted the value of F2F meetings, relationship building,
etc
DanD: +1 to eric
… The IETF is having a hybrid in Vienna - we're going to see
how that works out
… getting back to F2F would a boost to our ability to cooperate
… personally, Vancouver should be reasonably easy to reach
dom: with TPAC built for hybrid, but with China not being able
to travel, a short hybrid meeting in TPAC combined with lots of
discussions for those that can travel would be most valuable
McCool: let's also discuss this over email
joint meeting with Games CG
Sudeep: we met with the Games CG a couple of weeks ago
… Song presented the work of the IG, and the CG participants
shared their perspective
… highlighted the distinction between indy vs AAA games, with
varying impact of network
… overall, the topics of latency, monitoring are ones they look
at
… we opened up the conversation around edge
dom: they noted that the dependency on network and the interest
on edge was more likely for AAA games
… also, hoping to be able to share a summary from one of the CG
participants around the current limitations of network APIs on
the Web
Song: received interest on our Web & Networks IG presentation
from Chinese colleagues who got it translated and shared on the
W3C Chinese community
… which triggered further interest, e.g. from [7]https://
dappworks.cn
[7] https://dappworks.cn/
eric: the CG didn't seem to spend a lot time on AAA games
ac Eric_Siow
… We need to find problem statement that resonates to a broader
set of stakeholders
… including with more outreach
Slideset: [8]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/
2022Mar/att-0000/Edge_Web-WNIG-Mar2022-McCool.pdf
[8]
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2022Mar/att-0000/Edge_Web-WNIG-Mar2022-McCool.pdf
Edge Computing and the Web
McCool: this slideset is about setting up the problem
… skipping the first slides in the interest of time
… we need to gather and organize use cases
… but my focus today is how to organize stakeholders
[9][ Slide 4 ]
[9]
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2022Mar/att-0000/Edge_Web-WNIG-Mar2022-McCool.pdf#page=4
McCool: Rather than looking at specific companies, we're
looking at business models with which our problem statements
resonate, which I've organized in categories
… some companies cumulate 5 or 6 of these models
[10][ Slide 5 ]
[10]
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2022Mar/att-0000/Edge_Web-WNIG-Mar2022-McCool.pdf#page=5
McCool: then for each of these business models, I look at what
opportunities would emerge from solving the issue at hand
… business opportunities specifically
… I plan to bring this as PR to the use cases document
… we've starting validating with specific companies on whether
this matches their pain points
Dom: I like the model & the categories
Max: good starting point - we need to validate this with
industry stakeholders
… to reflect real industry input
McCool: let's iterate on corrections via a pull request
… once it's in the document, we can iterate with feedback from
other companies
Dom: +1
Max: sure
Song: I'm interested in the categories and descriptions of
stakeholders
… the developers I'm in touch with may not necessarily have
great clarity on business considerations
… this content will help them with moving the conversations
with their business people
McCool: we'll also to include the fact that some companies will
consider the edge as a threat to their business
[11][ Slide 6 ]
[11]
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2022Mar/att-0000/Edge_Web-WNIG-Mar2022-McCool.pdf#page=6
McCool: we'll want to derive requirements from use cases, with
security & privacy applied throughout
… I have prepared a PR that extends the requirements table,
some of which has a dependency on the use cases PR
… part of what we discuss is prioritizing use cases, which may
lead to a prioritization of requirements
… I've given a short name to each requirement to make it easier
to refer to them
… We'll also need a terminology section (e.g. edge cloud / edge
resource / edge client)
[12]Expand Requirements Table PR
[12] https://github.com/w3c/edge-computing-web-exploration/pull/6
McCool: [review expanded requirements from PR]
Max: I've brought a PR with additional use cases, incl on Video
Conference where edge may help a mobile terminal with more
limited resources
[13]Pull request: Add more use cases #4
[13] https://github.com/w3c/edge-computing-web-exploration/pull/4
Max: [review other proposed additional use cases]
… We need some mechanism to deal with the PR - if no objection,
I'm happy to merge them
… we could also organize ad-hoc meetings
… I'm happy to help with the mechanics of repo management
McCool: +1 on having someone responsible for merging
… and then iterate with one-on-one meetings if needed
Max: will do
dom: thanks a lot for moving forward; we should look towards
getting this published as first public interest group note
… the chairs and I will caucus to support you towards that
Sudeep: Michael, you raised an issue about terminology - any
plan on how to address it?
Michael: I can create a PR for the basic structure for the
terminology
… I'm looking for input on terms that need definitions
sudeep: any other W3C group that may have define these terms?
dom: probably not in W3C; but we should re-use external
definitions where they match our needs
mccool: part of the challenges is that there are so many
definitions to choose from
dand: re business models, one of the challenges is that it
really matters who "pays" for the edge resources
… on whose behalf is the resource allocation done
… e.g. if the client does it, it's usually associated to
caching / optimization proxy
… when the server does it, it's associated more with a CDN
… understanding that dynamic is critical for the Web
… also key to the trust model
mccool: 100% agree
… under security, one of the requirements will be who has
control, who do I trust and why
Sudeep: thank you all for the progress and plan for moving
forward
Slideset: [14]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/
2022Mar/att-0000/Edge_Web-WNIG-Mar2022-McCool.pdf
[14]
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2022Mar/att-0000/Edge_Web-WNIG-Mar2022-McCool.pdf
Received on Friday, 4 March 2022 16:33:36 UTC