[minutes] TPAC meeting Sep 11

Hi,

The minutes of our hybrid meeting at TPAC held on September 11 are 
available at:
   https://www.w3.org/2023/09/11-web-networks-minutes.html

and copied as text below.

Dom

                      Web & Networks Interest Group

11 September 2023

    [2]Agenda. [3]IRC log.

       [2] https://www.w3.org/wiki/Networks/TPAC2023
       [3] https://www.w3.org/2023/09/11-web-networks-irc

Attendees

    Present
           @@@_WoT, DanDruta, DapengLiu, DomHazael-Massieux,
           EricSiow, GeoffGustafson, Geun-Hyung_Kim, HuaqiShan,
           LinLi, LouayBassbouss, MichaelMcCool, Mirja_Kühlewind,
           PiersOHanlon, ShiLing, SongXU, SteveHarrison, Sudeep

    Regrets
           -

    Chair
           Dan, Song, Sudeep

    Scribe
           dontcallmeDOM_

Contents

     1. [4]Use Cases and Requirements
     2. [5]Next steps on Client/Edge/Cloud coordination document
     3. [6]Open Discussions
     4. [7]Wrap up

Meeting minutes

    Dan: [introducing the Web & Networks IG meeting]

    Slideset: [8]https://github.com/w3c/web-networks/blob/main/
    meetings/W3C_WNIG_TPAC2023_V1.pdf

       [8] 
https://github.com/w3c/web-networks/blob/main/meetings/W3C_WNIG_TPAC2023_V1.pdf

    Slideset: [9]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/
    2023Sep/att-0009/W3C_WNIG_TPAC2023_V1.pdf

       [9] 
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2023Sep/att-0009/W3C_WNIG_TPAC2023_V1.pdf

    [10][Slide 4]

      [10] 
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2023Sep/att-0009/W3C_WNIG_TPAC2023_V1.pdf#page=4

    Dan: the IG is missioned to explore solutions for Web Apps that
    leverage network capabilities
    … this included enabling apps to provide hints to the network
    on their needs, and vice-versa

    [11][Slide 5]

      [11] 
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2023Sep/att-0009/W3C_WNIG_TPAC2023_V1.pdf#page=5

    Dan: more recently, our focus has been on 3 specific areas:
    … - edge computing - even though it remains unclear how edge
    computing will materialize from a business & operational
    perspectives, we feel it's important we get the technical
    aspects understood in advance
    … - network quality monitoring & prediction
    … - network emulation

    [12][Slide 6]

      [12] 
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2023Sep/att-0009/W3C_WNIG_TPAC2023_V1.pdf#page=6

    [13][Slide 7]

      [13] 
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2023Sep/att-0009/W3C_WNIG_TPAC2023_V1.pdf#page=7

    [14][Slide 8]

      [14] 
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2023Sep/att-0009/W3C_WNIG_TPAC2023_V1.pdf#page=8

    Dan: for edge computing, we've developed use cases to
    understand the intersection between browsers and edge computing
    … and have explored different approaches that would allow
    offloading computing tasks
    … involving web assembly, web workers, etc
    … surfacing those in a technical note

    [15][Slide 9]

      [15] 
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2023Sep/att-0009/W3C_WNIG_TPAC2023_V1.pdf#page=9

    [16][Slide 10]

      [16] 
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2023Sep/att-0009/W3C_WNIG_TPAC2023_V1.pdf#page=10

    [17][Slide 11]

      [17] 
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2023Sep/att-0009/W3C_WNIG_TPAC2023_V1.pdf#page=11

    [18][Slide 12]

      [18] 
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2023Sep/att-0009/W3C_WNIG_TPAC2023_V1.pdf#page=12

    Dan: we haven't done much lately in that space; there was
    interest on this, but we would still need to put a package
    together similar to what we did for edge computing

    [19][Slide 13]

      [19] 
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2023Sep/att-0009/W3C_WNIG_TPAC2023_V1.pdf#page=13

    [20][Slide 14]

      [20] 
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2023Sep/att-0009/W3C_WNIG_TPAC2023_V1.pdf#page=14

    [21][Slide 15]

      [21] 
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2023Sep/att-0009/W3C_WNIG_TPAC2023_V1.pdf#page=15

    Dan: Edge computing so far has received the biggest focus of
    the group

    [22][Slide 16]

      [22] 
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2023Sep/att-0009/W3C_WNIG_TPAC2023_V1.pdf#page=16

    Dan: our current charter ends at the end of October, we're in
    the process of rechartering - please comment on the proposed
    draft charter

    [23][Slide 17]

      [23] 
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2023Sep/att-0009/W3C_WNIG_TPAC2023_V1.pdf#page=17

    Dan: there are interesting intersections with ongoing
    discussions e.g. around energy saving and efficiency

    Geoff: can you say more about the split browser model?

    Dan: way back in the ways when mobile bandwidth was limited,
    there was this approach of a split browser where an element in
    the network did some pre-rendering before sending it back in an
    efficient format to the end client
    … this is more of analogy - e.g. for situations where taking
    advantage of more GPU or CPU powers from the network

    Dom: the TR publication of the IG Note is awaiting a last round
    of edits on the conclusion

   Use Cases and Requirements

    Slideset: [24]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/
    2023Sep/att-0009/
    WNIG_UC_Study_-_Ubiquitous_Computing___________________________
    __________________v5.pdf

      [24] 
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2023Sep/att-0009/WNIG_UC_Study_-_Ubiquitous_Computing_____________________________________________v5.pdf

    [25][Slide 1]

      [25] 
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2023Sep/att-0009/WNIG_UC_Study_-_Ubiquitous_Computing_____________________________________________v5.pdf#page=1

    [26][Slide 2]

      [26] 
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2023Sep/att-0009/WNIG_UC_Study_-_Ubiquitous_Computing_____________________________________________v5.pdf#page=2

    [27][Slide 3]

      [27] 
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2023Sep/att-0009/WNIG_UC_Study_-_Ubiquitous_Computing_____________________________________________v5.pdf#page=3

    Song: SUL - Super UpLink
    … most usages focus on downlink
    … but there are a number of scenarios that rely on uplink
    capabilities
    … that has been a focus on some discussions in the 5G and 6G
    context
    … e.G. manufacturing scenarios, or immersive broadcasting
    … this is not just about increased bandwidth - it needs
    collaboration with the application layer and other actors of
    the ecosystem
    … 5GA (5G advanced) will introduce cloud edge and improvements
    in the client
    … in the context of the Web, WebRTC isn't always a proper
    solution - e.g. RTMP is still used for uplink streaming
    … HLS is used for downlink streaming - what role for
    WebTransport?
    … looking at the end 2 end picture, biggest delays come from
    the RTMP push and buffering of adaptive streaming

    Michael: is this related to the use cases in the edge use case
    doc?

    Song: this was a use case presented last year

    Michael: see [28]https://w3c.github.io/
    edge-computing-web-exploration/#UC-SA

      [28] https://w3c.github.io/edge-computing-web-exploration/#UC-SA

    Song: with transports based on TCP, a weak network is going to
    have a big impact
    … also H265 isn't available with webRTC

    [29][Slide 4]

      [29] 
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2023Sep/att-0009/WNIG_UC_Study_-_Ubiquitous_Computing_____________________________________________v5.pdf#page=4

    [30][Slide 5]

      [30] 
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2023Sep/att-0009/WNIG_UC_Study_-_Ubiquitous_Computing_____________________________________________v5.pdf#page=5

    [31][Slide 6]

      [31] 
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2023Sep/att-0009/WNIG_UC_Study_-_Ubiquitous_Computing_____________________________________________v5.pdf#page=6

    [32][Slide 7]

      [32] 
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2023Sep/att-0009/WNIG_UC_Study_-_Ubiquitous_Computing_____________________________________________v5.pdf#page=7

    [33][Slide 8]

      [33] 
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2023Sep/att-0009/WNIG_UC_Study_-_Ubiquitous_Computing_____________________________________________v5.pdf#page=8

    [34][Slide 9]

      [34] 
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2023Sep/att-0009/WNIG_UC_Study_-_Ubiquitous_Computing_____________________________________________v5.pdf#page=9

    [35]WasmEdge

      [35] https://wasmedge.org/

    [36][Slide 10]

      [36] 
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2023Sep/att-0009/WNIG_UC_Study_-_Ubiquitous_Computing_____________________________________________v5.pdf#page=10

    [37]Low Latency, Low Loss, Scalable Throughput (L4S) Internet
    Service: Architecture

      [37] https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-tsvwg-l4s-arch-19.html

    [38][Slide 11]

      [38] 
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2023Sep/att-0009/WNIG_UC_Study_-_Ubiquitous_Computing_____________________________________________v5.pdf#page=11

    [39][Slide 12]

      [39] 
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2023Sep/att-0009/WNIG_UC_Study_-_Ubiquitous_Computing_____________________________________________v5.pdf#page=12

    Michael: we should try to consolidate these use cases with our
    existing ones
    … do these new use cases fit in existing categories or do they
    need new ones?
    … do they bring new requirements?
    … do they require involvement of new stakeholders / new
    collaboration requirements?

    Dom: the scope is different - not all the described use cases
    rely on edge computing technology
    … let's only bring them those that are in the intersection

    Dan: right, but we should make sure the ones that overlap get
    documented in our existing doc
    … and the ones that don't, we should look at doing a similar
    exercise for that other scope

    Michael: maybe we need a bigger picture explainer on
    relationship between edge computing and network capabilities
    … or a broader use cases document for the group

    Sudeep: when we started the IG, we had 3 streams: edge
    computing, network link prediction and monitoring, and tools
    … now we're at looking at next generation use cases - we may
    need to draw a venn diagram with our existing workstreams and
    workstreams in other standardization landscapes

    Song: +1 to what Dan said in terms of integration and
    complementing the use cases

    Michael: it would be interesting to identify which new
    requirements are raised by these use cases

    Dan: an open question - our next steps include figuring which
    stakeholders are needed around the table
    … particularly key in the open environment of the Web where
    pre-existing trust relationships can't work as in more
    controlled environments
    … understanding how they would work in the context of the
    loosely coupled relationships of the eb Platform

    Dom: let's make sure we identify clear next steps to follow up
    on these ideas

    Michael: our current doc is not finished for sure; e.g. the
    trust model or negotation of quality assurances

    Max: I would like to discuss next steps on cloud coordination
    use cases

    Dan: Dom was asking what do we want to do next based on what
    has been presented
    … if there are things to be pushed to the edge explainer,
    that's a reasonably clear step
    … for the others, who would be spearheading that new document?
    … is this something you could be driving Song?

    Song: will be happy to look into this with the support of the
    chairs

    Dom: thanks Song! getting some inspiration on the structure of
    edge use cases, not necessarily focusing on pushing them in the
    edge use cases doc

    Dan: this matches what Michael is suggesting: creating a
    different "advanced network use cases and requirements"
    documents
    … let's make sure we have robust stories for these use cases
    … in particular taking into account the loosely coupled
    environment of the Web

    Michael: a lot of these questions depend on identify
    frameworks, incl (but exclusively) for people
    … DIDs may be part of the solution

   Next steps on Client/Edge/Cloud coordination document

    Max: I think the document is pretty stable
    … and we should be able to publish it once we fix the last
    remaining issue
    … I think forming a CG would be a good way to incubate a
    solution in this space
    … before proposing a WG
    … after the publication of the document as an IG note, we can
    start to establish a CG
    … we need a title, a short description and 5 supporters to
    launch the group
    … I'm happy to prepare this if there is support

    Michael: the advantage of a CG is that it allows to broaden the
    input to non W3C Members
    … this has proved useful in the WoT
    … we will just have to be clear on IP expectations

    Eric: +1, esp since W3C no longer has as many telco Members as
    it used to
    … CG contributions still require RF licensing
    … W3C & 3GPP have very different licensing obligations, I'm not
    sure how to reconcile between the 2

    DanD: you're right that some of the telco expertise moved away
    from W3C; that said, edge computing is much less telco oriented
    … it really has to do with workload offload - you probably
    wants more of the startup, innovators in the space of
    distributed computing than the telco space which tends to be a
    lot more rigid in the space of distributed computing
    … my only concern with CGs is that they can be like
    firecrackers - they too often fizzling up; keeping the momentum
    going is something that needs to be considered

    Michael: you also don't get staff support

    Dom: no issue with creating a CG from my perspective, but
    getting people to join and actively participate in the CG will
    remain the main challenge
    … this raises the question of who would be chairing and
    animating it

    Song: I support the new CG but indeed we need to be thoughtful
    about engagement

    Dan: indeed, figuring out the stakeholders, the target
    community feels critical

    Max: thanks - this is all useful and valid input

    Dan: in summary, positive feedback on the proposal, but more
    details needed before pushing this idea forward which we hope
    Max will pursue

   Open Discussions

    Dan: the future topics slide may be a trigger for more
    discussions

    Michael: the name of our group doesn't really surface that we
    work on the topic of edge computing
    … maybe we could integrate it more clearly in the name

    Dan: that makes sense

    Sudeep: sounds reasonable; not sure how this would relate to
    the other discussion on a CG

    Dom: this is about surfacing the edge in the IG name, while
    keeping the broader scope; the CG would be focused on solutions
    based on the edge use cases document

    Sudeep: that sounds like a good proposal to me too then

    Michael: Quality of Services negotiation hasn't surfaced
    … other subtopics under edge include workload packaging

    DanD: re network QoS (e.g. via network slices), it has to do
    with the trust model
    … which is hard to attack in the context of the Web model

    Michael: QoE would need to consider both communication time,
    computing time

   Wrap up

    Dan: Action items:
    … Song to go to the next level of details on use cases as a
    premise to mapping them into existing or new documents
    … Everybody to review the IG new charter and get it supported
    … Someone to include "Edge" in the name of the group
    … Max to propose an outreach strategy for a potential new CG in
    the space of client/edge/cloud coordination


     Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by
     [40]scribe.perl version 221 (Fri Jul 21 14:01:30 2023 UTC).

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

Received on Monday, 18 September 2023 14:49:57 UTC