Meeting minutes
Slideset: @@@
Smart Cities & Networks IG
<kaz> proposed Charter for the Web-based Digital Twins for Smart Cities IG
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> summary about smart cities discussion so far
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
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> https://
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
<McCool> (sorry, ntd due to another mtg)