Definitely want to assert that my views/thoughts should be taken with a grain of salt and validated with the overall CPC/OpenJS Foundation folks, but I would generally agree that those points align with my understanding of the state of the world for other projects _and_ generally assert that they align with the goals/intents of the Foundation.

 

From: Tobie Langel <tobie@...>
Date: Friday, December 6, 2019 at 12:48 PM
To: Greg Grothaus <greggrothaus@...>
Cc: Raghu Simha <rsimha@...>, Esther Kim <esth@...>, Ryan Cebulko <rcebulko@...>, Daniel Rozenberg <rodaniel@...>, amp-onboarding-infrastructure@... <amp-onboarding-infrastructure@...>, Jory Burson <jory@...>, Kris Borchers <kris.borchers@...>, Tierney Cyren <Tierney.Cyren@...>, Myles Borins <mborins@...>
Subject: Re: OpenJSF CPC / AMP Infra WG meeting during Collab Summit

Thanks for raising those questions again here, Greg.

 

To clarify, the goal of the effort leading to graduation is scoped to building a collective agreement on how to answer those questions and document it.

 

It's clear for the CPC that the actual implementation is going to take longer.

 

My understanding from chatting with Tierney during the AMP Contributor Summit is that:

• It would be ideal if the runtime was served from a Foundation-owned domain.
• The foundation doesn't have the resources to fund nor manage the infrastructure necessary to serve the runtime, so it's great if Google continues supporting this.
• It is absolutely OK if Google uses its own infrastructure to serve the runtime.
• It is important to have a plan in place to continue to serve the runtime should Google no longer want to continue to host it (e.g. have the server be open source).
• Whatever privacy policy is put in place to serve the runtime should limit data collection to security and performance purposes and only deal with anonymized data.

Tierney (others on the CPC), please feel free to correct the above.

 

Folks on the Google infra/cache side, does this look reasonable? Are there caveats with this?

 

Thanks,

 

--tobie

 

On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 9:13 PM Greg Grothaus <greggrothaus@...> wrote:

There are a handful of questions on that thread that would be useful to me to have answered. I don't think we can make progress until then. I'll repeat them here for clarity:

 

What domain name will we serve the runtime from?

What infrastructure will serve the content on that domain name?

 - Is Google infrastructure acceptable for the initial rollout?

 - If not, who will manage the serving infrastructure, and what CDN will be used?

 

-Greg

 

On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 11:56 AM Raghu Simha <rsimha@...> wrote:

Thanks for kicking this off, Tobie.

 

Looking forward to sitting down and talking about AMP's infrastructure and how it can integrate with Open JS. The infra WG can certainly provide input for https://github.com/ampproject/wg-infra/issues/19.

 

For https://github.com/ampproject/wg-infra/issues/18, I think it might be useful to have +Greg Grothaus (or if he's busy, someone else from the caching WG) dial in to the meeting, since they have significantly more knowledge about the AMP cache and its plans for the future.

 

Let me know what you think.

 

Raghu.

 

On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 7:25 PM Tobie Langel <tobie@...> wrote:

Hi folks,

 

AMP's Infra WG will be in Montreal for the Collab Summit next week.

 

This feels like a great opportunity to meet in person and make progress on the open issues around AMPs infrastructure:

• https://github.com/ampproject/wg-infra/issues/18
• https://github.com/ampproject/wg-infra/issues/19

Jory volunteered to help schedule a session/meeting to make this happen. This email is to get this started.

 

Looking forward to catching up with you all.

 

Best,

 

--tobie

 

---

Tobie Langel

Principal, UnlockOpen