Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
148 lines (102 loc) · 7.51 KB

WASI-11-16.md

File metadata and controls

148 lines (102 loc) · 7.51 KB
Raw

WASI logo

Agenda: November 16 WASI video call

Registration

If this is your first time attending, please fill out the registration form to receive an invite.

The meeting is open to CG members only. You can join the CG here.

Logistics

The meeting will be on a zoom.us video conference.

Agenda items

  1. Opening, welcome and roll call
    1. Please help add your name to the meeting notes.
    2. Please help take notes.
    3. Thanks!
  2. Announcements
    1. Submit a PR to add your announcement here
  3. Proposals and discussions
    1. Announcement of postponing changing WASI initialism (Luke Wagner)
    2. Discussion and poll to merge wasi-http/#68, changing WASI HTTP's portability criteria (Luke Wagner)
    3. Announcement of Phase 3 votes on 11-30 for io, filesystem, clocks, random, sockets, cli, and http (Pat Hickey)

Notes

Attendees

  • Pat Hickey
  • Bailey Hayes
  • Andrew Brown
  • Jorge Prendes
  • Kevin Moore
  • Kyle B
  • Colin Murphy
  • Sam Clegg
  • Hung-Ying Tai
  • Conrad Watt
  • Deepti Gandluri
  • Luke Wagner
  • Wouter Hennen
  • Wilson
  • Dan Gohman
  • Dan Philips
  • Oscar Spencer
  • Yong He
  • Ben Green
  • Wassim Chegham
  • Fedor Smimov
  • Michael Warres
  • Till Schneidereit
  • Piotr Sikora
  • Jeff Charles
  • Mingqiu Sun
  • Chris Woods
  • Syrus Akbary
  • Yosh Wuts
  • Ivan Font
  • Zalim Bashorov

Announcement of postponing changing WASI initialism (Luke Wagner)

Luke Wagner: Since our discussion last week Chris Woods had a thoughtful comment on the Github Issue. Paraphrasing, “Given that lots of things are changing, maybe this will add more confusion than necessary, so lets let preview 2 ship and once things are calm lets do it then”. That sounds good to me, no rush to change the name, so lets bring it up again in half a year.

Bailey Hayes Please leave more comments on the GitHub issue if you have more feedback on this.

Discussion and poll to merge wasi-http/#68, changing WASI HTTP's portability criteria (Luke Wagner)

Luke Wagner: Last time we talked about changing the portability criteria for WASI-HTTP. We filed an issue on that, collected feedback, positive approval from several of the WASI-HTTP champions and no disagreement so far. So lets bring it up to a poll.

Bailey Hayes: For entering preview 2, we have launch criteria and the general phases we have for WASI proposals. For the launch criteria of preview 2, we need two different implementations of the WASI interface proposed, and the portability criteria of the proposal says where those things are able to run. The proposal is that WASI HTTP doesn’t also have to run in the browser, in addition to node.js.

Luke Wagner: The wording is “WASI-http must have at least two complete independent implementations demonstrating embeddability in a production HTTP server context.” WebAssembly/wasi-http#68

Bailey Hayes: Holding a poll, the categories are strongly in favor, in favor, neutral, against, strongly against. Post your answers in the chat.

Poll results: Strongly For: 16 For: 2 Neutral: 6 Against: 0 Strongly against: 0

Bailey Hayes: We will move forward and change the criteria for wasi-http.

Announcement of Phase 3 votes on 11-30 for io, filesystem, clocks, random, sockets, cli, and http (Pat Hickey)

Pat Hickey: Heads-up that next meeting is a heavy agenda. Part of the criteria for launching preview 2 are all phase 3 proposals. A phase 3 proposal means that you have a credible plan for meeting the portable criteria:

Entry requirements:
* The portability criteria must be either met or there must be a plan for how they're expected to be met.
* All dependencies of the wit descriptions must have reached phase 3.

Pat Hickey: The goal is to launch preview 2 with the two worlds being wasi-cli world and wasi-http-proxy world. This set is those worlds and all of those dependencies. The criteria for all of these is that there are two implementations, and that it runs on mac, linux, and windows. This is complete with wasmtime. The second implementation for each of these is the JCO project. They are using the wasmtime test suite to measure their completeness. Thank you to the tracker Yosh setup yesterday to measure that they are at 53% completeness. JCO is expected to be complete, maybe by the end of the year or by January.

Pat Hickey: Given this information, we believe we are ready to open this to a vote. If you are looking to understand anything about these proposals or discuss what it means to vote next meeting.

Sam Clegg: You mentioned the that the tests live in wasmtime. Will this be something that will live next to the specs?

Pat Hickey: We have not yet done the engineering effort to move these to a separate test suite that wasmtime, JCO, and all other implementations will be able to use.

Pat Hickey: This is a nice to have and not required to launch Preview 2. We think we will be able to do this soon. In lieu of having the tests in an open place, we welcome people to scrutinize and provide feedback on the tests in wasmtime. The more time people spend time banging on and using these implementations, the better.

Pat Hickey: Feedback from JCO has been valuable. Guy and Yosh have been doing a good job of posting questions as issues to help document and improve the suite. We have also had a lot of good questions and discussions from Till Schneidereit while he has been doing implementations as well.

Yosh Wuyts: (in chat) https://github.com/bytecodealliance/wasmtime/tree/main/crates/test-programs/src/bin

there are currently 100 separate test programs checked in; each containing one or several test cases

Ivan Font: What is the relationship between the WASI Test Suite in the WASI org.

Pat Hickey: All of those tests are targeted at WASI Preview 1. Many of those are taken from the wasmtime test suite. Wasmtime also runs the WASI Test Suite.

Ivan Font: Do we think this is a reasonable place to move the preview 2 tests from Wasmtime?

Pat Hickey: Yes definitely. I can’t promise that’s something we can do right now, but when we get resources.

Syrus Akbary: Is there a good place to compare the implementation differences between wasi-sockets and posix sockets?

Pat Hickey: Dave Bakker is the champion. In general the doc text in that project is exemplary. Look at that proposal repo for more info and file issues for missing information.

Bailey Hayes: Dave presented in this meeting with a comprehensive matrix. Till posted a link to this in the chat.

Till Schneidereit: (in chat) the proposal is very detailed and explains where there are differences, and why: https://github.com/WebAssembly/wasi-sockets/

and more specifically to this question: https://github.com/WebAssembly/wasi-sockets/blob/main/Posix-compatibility.md

Syrus Akbary: That’s very helpful, thank you.

Pat Hickey: There isn’t a requirement to ask questions in this meeting. We encourage folks to discuss by opening issues in the proposal repo, or to talk with the proposal champion. Please reach out ahead of this vote.