Advancing to Wasi Phase 2

[asteurer]

Although this is a lower priority, I think it would be worth discussing what we need to do to advance to Phases 2 and 3. Based on what I'm reading in the Wasi phase documentation, we're close if not already ready for advancement to Phase 2.

[calebschoepp]

I think you're looking at the wrong doc. Try this one.

Here's what we need for phase 2:

• The portability criteria are documented in the proposal.
• Precise and complete overview document is available in a proposal repo around which a reasonably high level of consensus exists.
• A wit description of the API exists.
• All dependencies of the wit description must have reached phase 2.

[asteurer]

For the portability criteria portion, is it sufficient to require that WASI OTel be compatible with some minimum number of OpenTelemetry SDKs for Wasm-supported languages? Is there any other portability criteria that would matter?

[calebschoepp]

I'm not sure. @ricochet where might we go to get context on what portability criteria for this proposal would look like. I've looked at some of the other WASI proposals but they didn't seem super applicable to what we're doing here.

[ricochet]

HTTP is somewhat similar in that it's a high-level interface that isn't so much dependent on os-level capabilities.

WASI-http must have at least two complete independent implementations demonstrating embeddability in a production HTTP server context.

Maybe this?

WASI OTel must have at least two complete independent implementations demonstrating integration of an observability stack in a production environment.