Working group proposal for image compatibility

[mfranczy]

This PR proposes a new working group to create image compatibility specification.

References:

• Revisit container and host OS compatibility
• OCI image compatibility presentation

[mfranczy]

I'm concerned that the language here makes it sound like we are proposing to create a whole new OCI specification, when this really sounds IMO like a subset or intersection of the existing image and runtime specifications to me (exactly which one is probably a good topic for the WG, but my guess/gut is that image is most appropriate).

One of our ideas is to provide image compatibility specifications as an artifact (similar like SBOM). I think it would be best if we didn't have to play around with image and runtime specifications too much. If we in the working group agree and if TOB is OK with artifact way... then yes, we will define a new OCI spec for image compatibility wrapped by artifact.

I also think one of the most important lessons we in the OCI need to have learned from previous WGs is to make sure we have relevant maintainers involved and committed before approving a WG (unfortunately I'm currently on extended leave, so this can't really be me, but also me alone wouldn't be enough for quorum). 👀

Fair point.

[mfranczy]

when this really sounds IMO like a subset or intersection of the existing image and runtime specifications to me

Also.. I don't think it's gonna be a subset or intersection of already provided specifications. We have to express requirements against kernel configuration, cmdline, modules, drivers. This kind of stuff is not available in the already existing specs.

[mfranczy]

I also think one of the most important lessons we in the OCI need to have learned from previous WGs is to make sure we have relevant maintainers involved and committed before approving a WG (unfortunately I'm currently on extended leave, so this can't really be me, but also me alone wouldn't be enough for quorum). 👀

Fair point.

However, If we were extending image or runtime specification, we would certainly need relevant maintainers as owners. Although, if we are working on a completely new specification, I think it should not be a hard requirement to have quorum of image or runtime maintainers.

Don't get me wrong, I would be more than happy to have them in the group if they are interested.

[mfranczy]

@opencontainers/tob I kindly ask you to vote. Please express your opinion or approve the working group.

(see vote in https://github.com/opencontainers/tob/pull/128#issuecomment-1775967238)

[mfranczy]

I added additional owner and stakeholder. The PR is finished, please continue voting.

[neersighted]

I have a combination of concerns/thoughts on the scope and ambition of such an effort. However, they're probably best for actual technical and design discussions and not for here.

If it's not too late, I'd be happy to be a stakeholder for a major runtime.

[mfranczy]

I have a combination of concerns/thoughts on the scope and ambition of such an effort. However, they're probably best for actual technical and design discussions and not for here.

If it's not too late, I'd be happy to be a stakeholder for a major runtime.

It's not too late. I added you to the working group.

[samuelkarp]

Moving the TOB vote to a comment that can only be edited by the TOB :joy:

• [x] @sudo-bmitch
• [ ] @vbatts
• [x] @jdolitsky
• [x] @estesp
• [x] @jonjohnsonjr
• [ ] @nishakm
• [x] @samuelkarp
• [ ] @dmcgowan
• [x] @cyphar

2/3 vote is required, so 6/9 TOB members.

[cyphar]

And with that, the motion passes. :tada:

[mfranczy]

FYI for those who are not subscribed to dev OCI mailing list and are not present on slack but are watching this PR. I created the #wg-image-compatibility on opencontainers.slack.com.