[minutes] June 26 meeting

Hi,

The minutes of our meeting held today (June 26) are available at:
   https://www.w3.org/2024/06/26-web-networks-minutes.html

(I'll add links to the slidesets once they're available)

and copied as text below. The following call for actions were raised 
during the meeting:
- Call for Action: Review Web-based Digital Twins for Smart Cities IG 
charter
https://www.w3.org/2024/06/smart-cities/

- Call for Action: Review CECCG Charter
https://github.com/w3c/web-networks/blob/main/proposals/cloudedgeclientCG/charter.md

- Call to submit topics for TPAC Breakout session
https://github.com/w3c/tpac2024-breakouts/issues/new?assignees=&labels=session&projects=&template=session.yml

- Call to submit proposals for TPAC demos
Indicate your interest to mcf@w3.org or WNIG Chairs by email before July 
28, 2024. Please include a title, a description, the W3C group behind 
the relevant technical work (Web & Networks IG), and the contact person 
responsible for getting the video recorded.

- IETF Sconepro related links
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/119/session/sconepro

- IG Updates: WNIG will hold a Hybrid Group meeting @ TPAC on
24 September 2024, 09:00–10:30 Pacific Daylight Time
https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/c2245677-68a4-44ac-99fd-bca38333317e/

Dom

                  Web & Networks Interest Group Meeting

26 June 2024

    [2]Agenda. [3]IRC log.

       [2] 
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-networks-ig/2024Jun/0000.html
       [3] https://www.w3.org/2024/06/26-web-networks-irc

Attendees

    Present
           ChrisN, DanD, Dapeng, Dom, Eric, JuanCabaleero, Kaz,
           Louay, MichaelMcCool, Piers, SongXu, Sudeep, ZoltanKis

    Regrets
           -

    Chair
           DanD, SongXu, Sudeep

    Scribe
           dom

Contents

     1. [4]Smart Cities & Networks IG
     2. [5]Cloud-Edge-Client Coordination CG
     3. [6]SconePro @ IETF

Meeting minutes

    Slideset: @@@

   Smart Cities & Networks IG

    <kaz> [7]proposed Charter for the Web-based Digital Twins for
    Smart Cities IG

       [7] https://www.w3.org/2024/06/smart-cities/

    Song: Thank you Kaz for joining us today to discuss Smart
    Cities
    … I would like to start by sharing China Mobile's perspective
    on Smart Cities and DIgital Twins

    Slideset: ###

    [slide 2]

    [slide 3]

    Song: our research has shown that e.g. surveillance cameras fed
    into vision recognition systems requires lots of bandwidth and
    storage in backend systems
    … which could be e.g. better handled at the device level

    [slide 4]

    Song: we use smart cities technologies to solve traffic
    problems in big cities
    … e.g. in one of the cities with more than 2M vehicles, 900K
    buses, with 50K routes with lots of crossing required
    … we can identify 3 levels of traffic in terms of how the
    vehicles on the road match the city capacity: low,
    intermediate, excess
    … these levels of traffic can be mapped to average vehicle
    speed (from 37km/h to stuck traffic)

    [slide 5]

    Song: in terms of use cases for the Web & Networks IG
    … looking back at the 3 categories of links needed in Smart
    Cities: transmission is the 2nd one, key to real-time
    monitoring
    … with video data accounting to 70%+ in these scenarios
    … efficient transmission of the effective features of these
    video streams are critical

    [slide 6]

    Kaz: There is a proposed charter for the Smart Cities IG under
    Advisory Committee review, recently completed with the names of
    the proposed chairs
    … the charter lists several target topics: data management,
    edge cloud computing, ...
    … there is a summary of the scope including identifying
    stakeholders, running surveys, etc
    … most important part is to work with stakeholders incl Web &
    Networks IG, WoT groups
    … and external SDOs incl IETF, ITU-T, ISO, etc
    … Your input is very welcome!

    Sudeep: looking at the intersection between Smart Cities & Web
    & Networks IG: the charter mentions digital twins which is
    interesting
    … I see 3 angles: distributed compute, storage (which may need
    decentralized storage, with privacy implications),

    <kaz> [8]summary about smart cities discussion so far

       [8] 
https://www.w3.org/2024/Talks/0419-smartcities-ka/20240419-smartcities.pdf

    Sudeep: the kind of data (consumer data, emergency, news,
    surveillance, video feeds, sensor data)
    … is the IG looking at decentralized storage? different levels
    of transmissions based on data types?

    Mickael: the primary goal of the group is to gather use cases &
    requirements for smart cities, which will then help drive other
    work

    Kaz: indeed; as an IG, we won't be developing standards, but
    gathering requirements, running surveys, developing landscapes
    of existing standards
    … There may be important use cases around the points you
    mentioned, but the group won't be looking at the details of the
    standardization for these use caess

    Michael: re distributed storage - assuming this is moving
    compute closer to the cameras to avoid having
    transmitting/storing video in a central location

    Kaz: once we have identified requirements, we would bring them
    to the attention of the relevant WGs

    Eric: trade is another huge area; Verifiable Credentials and
    DID have been used in that space, but with every country using
    different software/documentation
    … e.g. the US has one, Singapore has their own ("TradeTrust")
    … to get everyone to adopt the same system around the world
    will be complicated
    … having an API that wraps around these different systems would
    seem to be needed
    … there is an opportunity here for some kind of solution to
    pull all those systems together
    … I'm wondering if that aspect should be included in the Smart
    Cities IG charter? given the involvement of China, Japan,
    Singapore in that space
    … This would raise the odds of getting other Asian countries to
    follow, along with other stakeholders

    Kaz: I completely agree
    … DID and VC have started to been used in the context of COVID,
    tax-cuts
    … we still need to think about mechanisms from other countries
    and regions
    … including their SDOs
    … to clarify how to integrate them one with another

    Song: the IG isn't only focused on scenarios in the physical
    worlds, but also the mapping between virtual and physical
    … I look forward to do more research on this

    Kaz: we hope to see the group launched in July

    [Kaz departs]

    Sudeep: please all look at the charter and identify which
    topics might benefit from coordination between the two groups!

   Cloud-Edge-Client Coordination CG

    [9]CG Charter proposal

       [9] 
https://github.com/w3c/web-networks/blob/main/proposals/cloudedgeclientCG/charter.md

    Dapeng: [projecting the latest proposed version of the CG
    charter]
    … one of the motivations for this CG is to make it easier for
    non-Member stakeholders to join the conversation, with a
    specific focus on this topic as defined in the charter
    … we've built the charter from the CG charter template - some
    still needs to be improved
    … the CG would explore the use cases and standardization of
    Cloud/Edge/Coordination
    … we'll identify real use cases, develop gap analysis, explore
    solutions
    … e.g. APIs to enable offloading of computing workloads and
    orchestration of the various computing resources

    Michael: this is a draft on which we will seeking further input
    … we want broad input on a narrowly focused problem

    Dapeng: I think we're close to finalize the charter

    Sudeep: Max, you're willing to serve as chair for that CG if it
    gets created?

    Dapeng: indeed

    ChrisN: the BBC has use cases we're interested to look at with
    this
    … the scope you've described is stuff the IG can already do;
    what's the motivation for a CG? is this for wider
    participation? or to allow look into specifications?

    Dapeng: indeed, allowing more stakeholders to join the
    conversation

    Chris: should clarify that incubation is in scope then

    dom: +1 on clarifying on the fact that the CG would write specs
    (not standards)
    … I don't suggest waiting for IG consensus - instead, move
    forward as soon as you're happy enough with the charter

    Juan: regarding the CG proposals, are you looking into creating
    new ones or evaluating/prototyping existing ones? e.g. a number
    of IETF work in the space of workload orchestration

    Michael: +1 on clarifying the scope per feedback; after one
    more round of editing, it should be ready for proposing the CG
    … a point of data: in the WoT IG/WG, we have ~20 participants;
    in the CG, ~200-300 participants with lots of presentations
    … this shows the value to get wider input from stakeholders

    Sudeep: a CG requires support from 5 people right?

    Dom: yes - no need for them to be member, only have a W3C
    account

    Sudeep: a future call to action for IG members
    … the scope of that CG has intersections also with Machine
    Learning, WoT

    Sudeep: I think this idea should be presented at TPAC, ideally
    with a demo, maybe a breakout

   SconePro @ IETF

    <McCool> [10]https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/119/session/
    sconepro

      [10] https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/119/session/sconepro

    DanD: there was BOF meeting in Brisbane with links to the
    relevant presentation
    … on secure communications on network properties
    … it wasn't a WG-forming BOF, mostly gathering more input on
    the idea
    … at the IETF meeting in Vancouver, there is a plan for
    WG-forming BOF on this subject
    … this was proposed initially as an extension to QUIC to enable
    streaming clients to police their traffic to match operator
    policies
    … With adaptive bitrates, the bitrate gets adapted to network
    conditions, but there are other considerations that should be
    taken into account
    … e.g. some operators differentiate their offerings by creating
    different plans with restriction of how much bandwidth gets
    used
    … this is currently handled by rate limiting the traffic from
    various devices using DPI and other techniques
    … which works with adaptive bitrate, but also impact
    non-adaptive flows, creating performance & QoE issues
    … the proposal is for the network to signal the maximum bitrate
    that particular end user device subscription should be
    accepting
    … and then the client can cap that bitrate to match
    … self-policing for streaming clients

Received on Friday, 28 June 2024 06:06:14 UTC