Re: [Wpack] Problem statement and scope for BoF

[Jeffrey Yasskin <[e-mail]>]

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.


> >    * Other users run out of paid-for data in their mobile plan part-way
>     through a month, or aggressively disable mobile data to make sure it's
>     not wasted.
>
> We have seen no evidence that this is done because of surfing, as opposed
> to tracking or other app activity.
>

I agree. The inference I'm going for here is that, if users have turned off
or run out of their data, even because of native-app misbehavior, they
can't then browse to and install a web app. I'm having trouble coming up
with wording that would make that clearer without being too wordy. Any
ideas?

Jeffrey