Status: Mixed
OpenTelemetry Protocol (OTLP) specification describes the encoding, transport, and delivery mechanism of telemetry data between telemetry sources, intermediate nodes such as collectors and telemetry backends.
Table of Contents
OTLP is a general-purpose telemetry data delivery protocol designed in the scope of OpenTelemetry project.
Each signal has different support and stability in OTLP, described through its own maturity level, which in turn applies to all the OTLP Transports listed below.
- Tracing: Stable
- Metrics: Beta
- Logs: Alpha
See OTLP Maturity Level.
OTLP defines the encoding of telemetry data and the protocol used to exchange data between the client and the server.
This specification defines how OTLP is implemented over gRPC and HTTP 1.1 transports and specifies Protocol Buffers schema that is used for the payloads.
OTLP is a request/response style protocols: the clients send requests, the
server replies with corresponding responses. This document defines one requests
and response type: Export.
Status: Stable
After establishing the underlying gRPC transport the client starts sending
telemetry data using unary requests using
Export*ServiceRequest
messages (ExportTraceServiceRequest for traces, ExportMetricsServiceRequest
for metrics, ExportLogsServiceRequest for logs). The client continuously sends
a sequence of requests to the server and expects to receive a response to each
request:
Note: this protocol is concerned with reliability of delivery between one pair of client/server nodes and aims to ensure that no data is lost in-transit between the client and the server. Many telemetry collection systems have intermediary nodes that the data must travel across until reaching the final destination (e.g. application -> agent -> collector -> backend). End-to-end delivery guarantees in such systems is outside of the scope of OTLP. The acknowledgements described in this protocol happen between a single client/server pair and do not span intermediary nodes in multi-hop delivery paths.
After sending the request the client MAY wait until the response is received from the server. In that case there will be at most only one request in flight that is not yet acknowledged by the server.
Sequential operation is recommended when simplicity of implementation is desirable and when the client and the server are connected via very low-latency network, such as for example when the client is an instrumented application and the server is an OpenTelemetry Collector running as a local daemon (agent).
The implementations that need to achieve high throughput SHOULD support concurrent Unary calls to achieve higher throughput. The client SHOULD send new requests without waiting for the response to the earlier sent requests, essentially creating a pipeline of requests that are currently in flight that are not acknowledged.
The number of concurrent requests SHOULD be configurable.
The maximum achievable throughput is
max_concurrent_requests * max_request_size / (network_latency + server_response_time).
For example if the request can contain at most 100 spans, network roundtrip
latency is 200ms and server response time is 300 ms, then the maximum achievable
throughput with one concurrent request is 100 spans / (200ms+300ms) or 200
spans per second. It is easy to see that in high latency networks or when the
server response time is high to achieve good throughput the requests need to be
very big or a lot concurrent requests must be done.
If the client is shutting down (e.g. when the containing process wants to exit) the client will optionally wait until all pending acknowledgements are received or until an implementation specific timeout expires. This ensures reliable delivery of telemetry data. The client implementation SHOULD expose an option to turn on and off the waiting during shutdown.
If the client is unable to deliver a certain request (e.g. a timer expired while waiting for acknowledgements) the client SHOULD record the fact that the data was not delivered.
The server may respond with either a success or an error to the requests.
The success response indicates telemetry data is successfully processed by the server. If the server receives an empty request (a request that does not carry any telemetry data) the server SHOULD respond with success.
Success response is returned via
Export*ServiceResponse
message (ExportTraceServiceResponse for traces, ExportMetricsServiceResponse
for metrics, ExportLogsServiceResponse for logs).
When an error is returned by the server it falls into 2 broad categories: retryable and not-retryable:
-
Retryable errors indicate that processing of telemetry data failed and the client SHOULD record the error and may retry exporting the same data. This can happen when the server is temporarily unable to process the data.
-
Not-retryable errors indicate that processing of telemetry data failed and the client MUST NOT retry sending the same telemetry data. The telemetry data MUST be dropped. This can happen, for example, when the request contains bad data and cannot be deserialized or otherwise processed by the server. The client SHOULD maintain a counter of such dropped data.
The server MUST indicate retryable errors using code Unavailable and MAY supply additional details via status using RetryInfo containing 0 value of RetryDelay. Here is a sample Go code to illustrate:
// Do this on server side.
st, err := status.New(codes.Unavailable, "Server is unavailable").
WithDetails(&errdetails.RetryInfo{RetryDelay: &duration.Duration{Seconds: 0}})
if err != nil {
log.Fatal(err)
}
return st.Err()To indicate not-retryable errors the server is recommended to use code InvalidArgument and MAY supply additional details via status using BadRequest. Other gRPC status code may be used if it is more appropriate. Here is a sample Go code to illustrate:
// Do this on server side.
st, err := status.New(codes.InvalidArgument, "Invalid Argument").
WithDetails(&errdetails.BadRequest{})
if err != nil {
log.Fatal(err)
}
return st.Err()The server MAY use other gRPC codes to indicate retryable and not-retryable errors if those other gRPC codes are more appropriate for a particular erroneous situation. The client SHOULD interpret gRPC status codes as retryable or not-retryable according to the following table:
| gRPC Code | Retryable? |
|---|---|
| CANCELLED | Yes |
| UNKNOWN | No |
| INVALID_ARGUMENT | No |
| DEADLINE_EXCEEDED | Yes |
| NOT_FOUND | No |
| ALREADY_EXISTS | No |
| PERMISSION_DENIED | No |
| UNAUTHENTICATED | No |
| RESOURCE_EXHAUSTED | Yes |
| FAILED_PRECONDITION | No |
| ABORTED | Yes |
| OUT_OF_RANGE | Yes |
| UNIMPLEMENTED | No |
| INTERNAL | No |
| UNAVAILABLE | Yes |
| DATA_LOSS | Yes |
When retrying, the client SHOULD implement an exponential backoff strategy. An exception to this is the Throttling case explained below, which provides explicit instructions about retrying interval.
OTLP allows backpressure signalling.
If the server is unable to keep up with the pace of data it receives from the client then it SHOULD signal that fact to the client. The client MUST then throttle itself to avoid overwhelming the server.
To signal backpressure when using gRPC transport, the server MUST return an error with code Unavailable and MAY supply additional details via status using RetryInfo. Here is a sample Go code to illustrate:
// Do this on server side.
st, err := status.New(codes.Unavailable, "Server is unavailable").
WithDetails(&errdetails.RetryInfo{RetryDelay: &duration.Duration{Seconds: 30}})
if err != nil {
log.Fatal(err)
}
return st.Err()
...
// Do this on client side.
st := status.Convert(err)
for _, detail := range st.Details() {
switch t := detail.(type) {
case *errdetails.RetryInfo:
if t.RetryDelay.Seconds > 0 || t.RetryDelay.Nanos > 0 {
// Wait before retrying.
}
}
}When the client receives this signal it SHOULD follow the recommendations outlined in documentation for RetryInfo:
// Describes when the clients can retry a failed request. Clients could ignore
// the recommendation here or retry when this information is missing from error
// responses.
//
// It's always recommended that clients should use exponential backoff when
// retrying.
//
// Clients should wait until `retry_delay` amount of time has passed since
// receiving the error response before retrying. If retrying requests also
// fail, clients should use an exponential backoff scheme to gradually increase
// the delay between retries based on `retry_delay`, until either a maximum
// number of retires have been reached or a maximum retry delay cap has been
// reached.
The value of retry_delay is determined by the server and is implementation
dependant. The server SHOULD choose a retry_delay value that is big enough to
give the server time to recover, yet is not too big to cause the client to drop
data while it is throttled.
gRPC service definitions are here.
Protobuf definitions for requests and responses are here.
Please make sure to check the proto version and maturity level. Schemas for different signals may be at different maturity level - some stable, some in beta.
The default network port for OTLP/gRPC is 4317.
Binary Format Status: Stable JSON Format Status: Experimental
OTLP/HTTP uses Protobuf payloads encoded either in binary format or in JSON format. The Protobuf schema of the messages is the same for OTLP/HTTP and OTLP/gRPC.
OTLP/HTTP uses HTTP POST requests to send telemetry data from clients to servers. Implementations MAY use HTTP/1.1 or HTTP/2 transports. Implementations that use HTTP/2 transport SHOULD fallback to HTTP/1.1 transport if HTTP/2 connection cannot be established.
Telemetry data is sent via HTTP POST request. The body of the POST request is a payload either in binary-encoded Protobuf format or in JSON-encoded Protobuf format.
The default URL path for requests that carry trace data is /v1/traces (for
example the full URL when connecting to "example.com" server will be
https://example.com/v1/traces). The request body is a Protobuf-encoded
ExportTraceServiceRequest message.
The default URL path for requests that carry metric data is /v1/metrics and
the request body is a Protobuf-encoded ExportMetricsServiceRequest message.
The default URL path for requests that carry log data is /v1/logs and the
request body is a Protobuf-encoded ExportLogsServiceRequest message.
The client MUST set "Content-Type: application/x-protobuf" request header when sending binary-encoded Protobuf or "Content-Type: application/json" request header when sending JSON encoded Protobuf payload.
The client MAY gzip the content and in that case MUST include "Content-Encoding: gzip" request header. The client MAY include "Accept-Encoding: gzip" request header if it can receive gzip-encoded responses.
Non-default URL paths for requests MAY be configured on the client and server sides.
JSON-encoded Protobuf payloads use proto3 standard defined
JSON Mapping
for mapping between Protobuf and JSON, with one deviation from that mapping: the
trace_id and span_id byte arrays are represented as
case-insensitive hex-encoded strings,
they are not base64-encoded like it is defined in the standard
JSON Mapping.
The hex encoding is used for trace_id and span_id fields in all OTLP
Protobuf messages, e.g. the Span, Link, LogRecord, etc. messages.
Response body MUST be the appropriate serialized Protobuf message (see below for the specific message to use in the Success and Failure cases).
The server MUST set "Content-Type: application/x-protobuf" header if the response body is binary-encoded Protobuf payload. The server MUST set "Content-Type: application/json" if the response is JSON-encoded Protobuf payload. The server MUST use the same "Content-Type" in the response as it received in the request.
If the request header "Accept-Encoding: gzip" is present in the request the server MAY gzip-encode the response and set "Content-Encoding: gzip" response header.
On success the server MUST respond with HTTP 200 OK. Response body MUST be
Protobuf-encoded ExportTraceServiceResponse message for traces,
ExportMetricsServiceResponse message for metrics and
ExportLogsServiceResponse message for logs.
The server SHOULD respond with success no sooner than after successfully decoding and validating the request.
If the processing of the request fails the server MUST respond with appropriate
HTTP 4xx or HTTP 5xx status code. See sections below for more details about
specific failure cases and HTTP status codes that should be used.
Response body for all HTTP 4xx and HTTP 5xx responses MUST be a
Protobuf-encoded
Status
message that describes the problem.
This specification does not use Status.code field and the server MAY omit
Status.code field. The clients are not expected to alter their behavior based
on Status.code field but MAY record it for troubleshooting purposes.
The Status.message field SHOULD contain a developer-facing error message as
defined in Status message schema.
The server MAY include Status.details field with additional details. Read
below about what this field can contain in each specific failure case.
If the processing of the request fails because the request contains data that
cannot be decoded or is otherwise invalid and such failure is permanent then the
server MUST respond with HTTP 400 Bad Request. The Status.details field in
the response SHOULD contain a
BadRequest
that describes the bad data.
The client MUST NOT retry the request when it receives HTTP 400 Bad Request
response.
If the server receives more requests than the client is allowed or the server is
overloaded the server SHOULD respond with HTTP 429 Too Many Requests or
HTTP 503 Service Unavailable and MAY include
"Retry-After" header with a
recommended time interval in seconds to wait before retrying.
The client SHOULD honour the waiting interval specified in "Retry-After" header
if it is present. If the client receives HTTP 429 or HTTP 503 response and
"Retry-After" header is not present in the response then the client SHOULD
implement an exponential backoff strategy between retries.
All other HTTP responses that are not explicitly listed in this document should be treated according to HTTP specification.
If the server disconnects without returning a response the client SHOULD retry and send the same request. The client SHOULD implement an exponential backoff strategy between retries to avoid overwhelming the server.
If the client is unable to connect to the server the client SHOULD retry the connection using exponential backoff strategy between retries. The interval between retries must have a random jitter.
The client SHOULD keep the connection alive between requests.
Server implementations SHOULD accept OTLP/HTTP with binary-encoded Protobuf payload and OTLP/HTTP with JSON-encoded Protobuf payload requests on the same port and multiplex the requests to the corresponding payload decoder based on the "Content-Type" request header.
Server implementations MAY accept OTLP/gRPC and OTLP/HTTP requests on the same port and multiplex the connections to the corresponding transport handler based on the "Content-Type" request header.
To achieve higher total throughput the client MAY send requests using several parallel HTTP connections. In that case the maximum number of parallel connections SHOULD be configurable.
The default network port for OTLP/HTTP is 4317.
When the telemetry data from one client must be sent to more than one destination server there is an additional complication that must be accounted for. When one of the servers acknowledges the data and the other server does not (yet) acknowledges the client needs to make a decision about how to move forward.
In such situation the the client SHOULD implement queuing, acknowledgement handling and retrying logic per destination. This ensures that servers do not block each other. The queues SHOULD reference shared, immutable data to be sent, thus minimizing the memory overhead caused by having multiple queues.
This ensures that all destination servers receive the data regardless of their speed of reception (within the available limits imposed by the size of the client-side queue).
In edge cases (e.g. on reconnections, network interruptions, etc) the client has no way of knowing if recently sent data was delivered if no acknowledgement was received yet. The client will typically choose to re-send such data to guarantee delivery, which may result in duplicate data on the server side. This is a deliberate choice and is considered to be the right tradeoff for telemetry data.
The protocol does not attempt to communicate partial reception success from the server to the client (i.e. when part of the data can be received by the server and part of it cannot). Attempting to do so would complicate the protocol and implementations significantly and is left out as a possible future area of work.
OTLP will evolve and change over time. Future versions of OTLP must be designed and implemented in a way that ensures that clients and servers that implement different versions of OTLP can interoperate and exchange telemetry data. Old clients must be able to talk to new servers and vice versa. If new versions of OTLP introduce new functionality that cannot be understood and supported by nodes implementing the old versions of OTLP the protocol must regress to the lowest common denominator from functional perspective.
When possible the interoperability MUST be ensured between all versions of OTLP that are not declared obsolete.
OTLP does not use explicit protocol version numbering. OTLP's interoperability of clients and servers of different versions is based on the following concepts:
-
OTLP (current and future versions) defines a set of capabilities, some of which are mandatory, others are optional. Clients and servers must implement mandatory capabilities and can choose implement only a subset of optional capabilities.
-
For minor changes to the protocol future versions and extension of OTLP are encouraged to use the ability of Protobufs to evolve message schema in backwards compatible manner. Newer versions of OTLP may add new fields to messages that will be ignored by clients and servers that do not understand these fields. In many cases careful design of such schema changes and correct choice of default values for new fields is enough to ensure interoperability of different versions without nodes explicitly detecting that their peer node has different capabilities.
-
More significant changes must be explicitly defined as new optional capabilities in future OTEPs. Such capabilities SHOULD be discovered by client and server implementations after establishing the underlying transport. The exact discovery mechanism SHOULD be described in future OTEPs which define the new capabilities and typically can be implemented by making a discovery request/response message exchange from the client to server. The mandatory capabilities defined by this specification are implied and do not require a discovery. The implementation which supports a new, optional capability MUST adjust its behavior to match the expectation of a peer that does not support a particular capability.
There are 2 parties involved in telemetry data exchange. In this document the
party that is the source of telemetry data is called the Client, the party
that is the destination of telemetry data is called the Server.
Examples of a Client are instrumented applications or sending side of telemetry collectors, examples of Servers are telemetry backends or receiving side of telemetry collectors (so a Collector is typically both a Client and a Server depending on which side you look from).
Both the Client and the Server are also a Node. This term is used in the
document when referring to either one.