Re: [Wpack] Problem statement and scope for BoF

[Jeffrey Yasskin <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 10:12 AM Benjamin Kaduk <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 07, 2019 at 10:04:16AM -0700, Jeffrey Yasskin wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 4:28 PM Salz, Rich <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > > Commenting only on the "problem" part of your post; I reserve the
> right to
> > > comment on other parts later :)
> > >
> > > I am surprised that search carousel and AMP isn't mentioned, as
> frankly it
> > > is the use-case with the most economic incentive/impact. Honesty
> compels us
> > > to explicitly mention it, plainly, and first.
> > >
> >
> > The AMP and Search Carousel use case is mentioned as "Even users with
> > highly-available internet connections want to be able to read and
> interact
> > with web pages as quickly as possible after clicking a link." The use
> case
> > is broader than just one framework or piece of search result UI, so it
> > seemed wrong to call out particular brands.
> >
> > Further, my impression of IETF charters is that they discuss and
> prioritize
> > the goals of the IETF working group, not just the goals of the company
> > employing the individuals who are proposing the WG. My impression is that
> > the IETF sets a lower priority on fixing the AMP URL problem than
> improving
> > access to the global internet, so I wrote the higher priority use case
> > first.
> >
> > It's true that a lot of Google's investment in the problem is driven by
> > trying to fix things around AMP, but I think it's fair to solve a problem
> > for less-wealthy users by using funding from a wealthier client who can
> > also benefit from the same solution.
> >
> > I'm happy to take changes here, but I need those changes to be designed
> to
> > maximize the chance of chartering a working group. The ideal change comes
> > with a statement along the lines of "I don't support chartering a WG with
> > the current problem/scope/charter, but I would support it after this
> > change." Rich, judging from your ESCAPE submission, you don't want the
> IETF
> > to do this work at all, so I worry that if I take your suggestions, it'll
> > make the IETF less likely to create the WG. If I've misread your post,
> and
> > you actually think the IETF is enthusiastic to prioritize AMP first, let
> me
> > know.
>
> Well, given the recent breadth of discussion around expanding the
> Internet threat model, there's also been a bit of introspection about
> the way we think about the work we do in general.  So that we are not
> just going to consider what the stated goals are (and whether they can
> be achieved), but what the side effects of doing that work would be, and
> whether there are other (potentially harmful) consequences of building a
> given technology.  The IAB has explicitly indicated that the risk of
> consolidation into a small number of service providers is something they
> are concerned about, and so if one should expect them (and, presumably,
> the IESG as well) to take that risk into account when considering
> chartering new work.  Having an honest discussion of what the possible
> and likely side effects of a given technology could be seems to be a
> generally helpful thing for the IAB and IESG in their consideration of
> proposed ne work, and I for one would welcome such a discussion here.
>
> -Ben
>

That's a great point, and I'm adding a section
<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OUZcl6yQSJ5eZxMrbo6O2tVRW_U_bv0PZUxAVtR1GYA/edit#heading=h.neomzorgyz5f>
for it to my document. However, I don't have very good content for that
section. We had the ESCAPE workshop partly to try to find ways that Web
Packaging might increase the risk of consolidation, and Martin is writing
the report from there, but I didn't come away with any mechanisms that seem
likely to have a big effect.

Martin, do you have a good list of ways folks are worried that Packaging
will centralize service providers?

Ben, do you have any examples of charters that have incorporated this kind
of discussion? I'd like to be able to copy the structure if possible.

Thanks,
Jeffrey