Meeting minutes
Dan: [introducing the Web & Networks IG meeting]
Slideset: https://
Slideset: https://
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
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
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
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
Dan: Edge computing so far has received the biggest focus of the group
Dan: our current charter ends at the end of October, we're in the process of rechartering - please comment on the proposed draft charter
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
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 https://
Song: with transports based on TCP, a weak network is going to have a big impact
… also H265 isn't available with webRTC
Low Latency, Low Loss, Scalable Throughput (L4S) Internet Service: Architecture
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