Dave Bakker

Do you think there is something that needs to be changed to the wasi-sockets proposal?

My current line of thinking is to extend the `datagram` record with the additional fields. See: https://github.com/badeend/wasi-sockets/commit/185aee9201c1a863fa83c4241d9aaf0604fd617a#diff-dd6be4acde08e40226bc7d44060c0e1cae9acf6a3bd6036afbd26915706007d5 This also includes some extra fields unrelated to this specific IP_PKTINFO issue. What...

I have only skimmed the JCO implementation so I could be wrong, but: my guess is that it has to with the fact that you cache the local address, but...

Both broadcast and multicast require specialized socket options. None of which are currently specified or implemented, so implicitly they're unsupported. I agree it couldn't hurt to clarify this in the...

My stance so far: Unless people come pouring in with use cases, I don't think its worth the effort of maintaining two different mechanisms of obtaining socket handles (one being...

If we were to include `resolve_name`/`getnameinfo`, does that also open the door for inclusion of `gethostname` ?

Not sure I see the relationship. Despite their unfortunate names, `getsockname` & `getpeername` don't return names but socket addresses. `gethostname` returns the name of the current computer. > We should...

I don't worry too much about the (historic & broader) definition of a "socket" and what it is "supposed" to do. Rather, I focus on: How can we provide a...

This modularization already exists to some degree. This proposal includes UDP & TCP as fully independent interfaces. Additionally, there nothing stopping a future proposal from adding a third separate interface...

Is there anything else you wanted to discuss?