- 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