Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Document the long-term strategy for disentangling the AMP runtime from the Google AMP Cache #13

Closed
tobie opened this issue Oct 31, 2019 · 10 comments

Comments

@tobie
Copy link

@tobie tobie commented Oct 31, 2019

See:

  • A CDN for the AMP runtime section in the OpenJS Foundation application.

  • The FAQ on the OpenJS Foundation announcement:

    Currently, the AMP runtime is hosted on the same infrastructure as the Google AMP Cache. Doesn’t this present serious issues?

    The end goal is to separate the AMP runtime from the Google AMP Cache. The Project is currently in the incubating stage and Project leaders are still determining the next steps. Ideally, hosting and deployment of the AMP runtime to the CDN would fall under the purview of the OpenJS Foundation, much like the foundation is handling other projects CDNs, such as the jQuery CDN.

    Untangling the runtime from the cache is a complex endeavor requiring significant investments of time and effort which would be planned and implemented in collaboration with the foundation and industry stakeholders during and after incubation.

    The OpenJS Foundation CPC is committed to having a long-term strategy in place to address this issue by the end of AMP’s incubation.

This should notably:

  • be done in collaboration with the foundation and the CPC,
  • describe the difference between the proprietary AMP caches, such as Google's or Bing's, and the hosting of the AMP runtime,
  • include a projected timeframe for dis-entangling the two,
  • specify the domain(s) on which the AMP runtime would be hosted,
  • clarify that AMP caches would probably host their own copy of the runtime (and that cached AMP pages would be transformed accordingly as part of the pre-caching transform process),
  • describe by whom the supporting infrastructure would be provided, how it would be maintained, and how it would be governed,
  • describe the deployment process and related security considerations, and
  • describe the privacy policy under which the runtime would be hosted.
@mrjoro
Copy link
Member

@mrjoro mrjoro commented Nov 5, 2019

@Gregable
Copy link
Member

@Gregable Gregable commented Nov 6, 2019

I'm guessing that the following are the required technical goals:

  1. Serve the AMP runtime files on a new domain name. (amp.dev?)
  2. Change AMP validation to accept those URLs.
  3. Continue to serve the AMP runtime on cdn.ampproject.org for backwards compatibility, which Google will continue to own (?).

The simplest to set up would initially be if Google continued to provide the serving infrastructure for this new domain. Since the foundation would own the domain itself, it could then independently choose to switch to a different infrastructure provider in the future, as either a phase 2 of the project or at some undetermined time in the future when there is a benefit to do so. It would be useful for planning to know from the WG if this is an acceptable design or if not, who would provide the serving infrastructure.

@tobie
Copy link
Author

@tobie tobie commented Nov 6, 2019

@Gregable in broad strokes, that's what we discussed with @bnb during the contributor summit.

My understanding is that the foundation would be happy staying at a phase 1, but would like to have an open source solution available to make a transition to phase 2 possible. I don't have a good enough understanding of the infra requirements needed to serve the runtime at scale, so I don't know whether that's a reasonable requirement or whether the deployment is too specific to Google's infra to make that possible.

It would be good to have an open communication channel between the OpenJS foundation's Cross Project Council (CPC), @ampproject/wg-infra, and @ampproject/wg-caching to make sure there's a good understanding of the requirements and the constraints on all sides.

@bnb, @brianwarner, @jorydotcom: what's the best option here? (for the communication channel, that is.)

@Gregable
Copy link
Member

@Gregable Gregable commented Nov 6, 2019

The deployment isn't too specific to Google's infra. Whatever is deployed would need to be edge-cached though, so a CDN of some sort with edge-caching servers would need to be involved. There are several other private companies that provide such serving, Google's infra being just one option. I'm unsure which if any would qualify as an open source solution.

@tobie
Copy link
Author

@tobie tobie commented Nov 12, 2019

Opened openjs-foundation/project-onboarding#31 to get a communication channel vetween the CPC and this group.

@mrjoro mrjoro transferred this issue from ampproject/wg-infra Dec 13, 2019
@Gregable
Copy link
Member

@Gregable Gregable commented Mar 10, 2020

See Disentangling the AMP runtime from the Google AMP Cache for the draft design. After some discussion, we decided to propose that the foundation register a new domain name rather than transferring ampproject.org, but both options are discussed in detail in the linked document.

@tobie tobie moved this from In Progress to Discuss during meeting in OpenJS Foundation Onboarding Mar 10, 2020
@tobie tobie moved this from Discuss during meeting to In Progress in OpenJS Foundation Onboarding Mar 24, 2020
@tobie
Copy link
Author

@tobie tobie commented Mar 24, 2020

Agreement to share this document with the CPC to get feedback. @jorydotcom will share with the CPC copying @Gregable and @tobie (I will share email addresses privately).

@tobie tobie moved this from In Progress to Discuss during meeting in OpenJS Foundation Onboarding Apr 7, 2020
@tobie
Copy link
Author

@tobie tobie commented Apr 7, 2020

Document shared late March. CPC emailed with follow-up question. @Gregable to get back to the CPC.

@tobie
Copy link
Author

@tobie tobie commented Apr 21, 2020

@jorydotcom to get back to the CPC and advise AMP infra will be moving ahead with the agreed plan if there aren't further comments or questions.

@tobie tobie closed this May 3, 2020
OpenJS Foundation Onboarding automation moved this from Discuss during meeting to Done May 3, 2020
@tobie
Copy link
Author

@tobie tobie commented May 3, 2020

Confirmation from @joesepi that he was OK with the plan. Closing.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Linked pull requests

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

None yet
4 participants
You can’t perform that action at this time.