-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 892
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Discuss using http.request.* and http.response.* #99
Comments
This is done via the Span Kind, not the attribute names. Headers cannot really be transported with the current restriction that attributes must be scalars (unless you use a convention like |
Closing this as there are no semantic conventions for request and response headers. Please reopen if you think we should have semantic conventions for request and response headers at this time, or submit a PR to the spec. |
* OTLP/HTTP: HTTP Transport Extension for OTLP OTLP can be currently communicated only via one transport: gRPC. While using gRPC has certain benefits there are also drawbacks: - Some users have infrastructure limitations that make gRPC-based protocol usage impossible. For example AWS ALB does not support gRPC connections. - gRPC is a relatively big dependency, which some clients are not willing to take. Plain HTTP is a smaller dependency and is built in the standard libraries of many programming languages. This proposal keeps the existing specification of OTLP over gRPC transport (OTLP/gRPC for short) and defines an additional way to use OTLP protocol over HTTP transport (OTLP/HTTP for short). OTLP/HTTP uses the same ProtoBuf payload that is used by OTLP/gRPC and defines how this payload is communicated over HTTP transport. * Address PR comments * Add response body description Co-authored-by: Bogdan Drutu <bogdandrutu@gmail.com>
* OTLP/HTTP: HTTP Transport Extension for OTLP OTLP can be currently communicated only via one transport: gRPC. While using gRPC has certain benefits there are also drawbacks: - Some users have infrastructure limitations that make gRPC-based protocol usage impossible. For example AWS ALB does not support gRPC connections. - gRPC is a relatively big dependency, which some clients are not willing to take. Plain HTTP is a smaller dependency and is built in the standard libraries of many programming languages. This proposal keeps the existing specification of OTLP over gRPC transport (OTLP/gRPC for short) and defines an additional way to use OTLP protocol over HTTP transport (OTLP/HTTP for short). OTLP/HTTP uses the same ProtoBuf payload that is used by OTLP/gRPC and defines how this payload is communicated over HTTP transport. * Address PR comments * Add response body description Co-authored-by: Bogdan Drutu <bogdandrutu@gmail.com>
For HTTP we often have to distinguish between request and response which leads to long field names like
http.requestheaders
andhttp.responseheaders
.So instead of using
http.requestheaders
it could behttp.request.headers
,http.response.headers
.This might be also applicable to other protocols.
ECS does something similar https://github.com/elastic/ecs/blob/master/schemas/http.yml
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: