/cc @ampproject/wg-infra @ampproject/wg-caching @rsimha @Gregable

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.

@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.)

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.

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

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.

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).

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

@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.

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