Set up wasi-crypto working group?

[rjzak]

I'd like to propose a weekly 30-minute call to discuss wasi-crypto and synchronize efforts. We're ready to use it in Enarx, and would like to have it in a Wasi snapshot.

CC: @npmccallum, @jedisct1, @tarcieri, @sunfishcode

Refs: #69, #65, #63, #58, #56, #71

[jedisct1]

Unless this is specifically about rust and wasmtime, @sonder-joker should obviously be here as well.

[jedisct1]

Having representatives of common crypto libraries, as well as other webassembly runtimes involved would also probably be a good thing.

[PiotrSikora]

I'd be interested as well, so please invite me if there is a separate meeting... But is there any reason not to have this discussion (or at least, to kick it off) in the regular bi-weekly WASI meeting?

[tarcieri]

I'd be interested in attending a kickoff meeting. Not sure I can attend regularly though. Be happy to jump on to discuss specific issues as they come up

[rjzak]

@PiotrSikora Starting off with the Wasi meeting, scheduled for 11 August, works for me.
@jedisct1 Could you tag other potentially interested parties to make them aware?

[ndevillard]

Hi all, I would also be interested to join such a working group, if invitations are open?
We are working on a similar project: a generic C API for crypto. Hope that makes sense.

[rjzak]

Is everyone part of the WebAssembly Working Group? If not, then let's not use the Wasi meeting to get started.

[jedisct1]

In order to get some adoption, taking advantage of the crypto extension should be as simple as possible for application developers. Ideally, it should be transparent. Existing crypto libraries and APIs like the generic C API would, under the hood, use the extension when the application is compiled to WebAssembly. This is at least what we're planning to do in the Zig standard library.

So, yes, @ndevillard , your participation would be more than welcome!

[jedisct1]

When WebAssembly signatures were discussed during WebAssembly CG meetings, my impression was that most of the participants were not specifically interested in discussing specialized topics such as crypto. Most of the discussions actually happened in a dedicated working group.

It may be the same here. A dedicated working group, with its own sessions may be more appropriate, especially to discuss algorithms or implementation details.

[jedisct1]

Maybe @autodidaddict @tniessen @vshymanskyy @FiloSottile would like to join?

[FiloSottile]

I’d be interested, especially if the goal is for compilation of Go to WASI to automatically use these interfaces. Like Tony, I can definitely attend a kickoff, not sure on all ongoing meetings.

…

On Aug 3, 2022, at 09:59, Frank Denis ***@***.***> wrote:  Maybe @autodidaddict @tniessen @vshymanskyy @FiloSottile would like to join? — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe. You are receiving this because you were mentioned.

[linclark]

Is everyone part of the WebAssembly Working Group? If not, then let's not use the Wasi meeting to get started.

Unfortunately if this wants to move forward as a WASI proposal, everyone does need to be part of the WebAssembly CG. This is due to IP rules in the W3C.

I would suggest using the WASI SG meetings. We usually have space in the agenda, and other contributors can determine from the agenda whether they are interested in attending or not, so that should solve the "are we boring everyone else" issue.

[rjzak]

Joining the WebAssembly Working Group can be done here: https://www.w3.org/community/webassembly/

[rjzak]

Thoughts for the first meeting:

• Finalising Wasi-Crypto so it can be in the next Wasi Snapshot.
• Migrate Witx to Wit.
  • Seems Wasmtime Wiggle is the Witx parser, and glue to link the generated code to Wasmtime internals. Alternatives?
• Rust Crypto vs. Boring. Options based on features?
• Anything else?

[abrown]

I'm also interested in attending.