Introduce Scope Attributes

text/0201-scope-attributes.md

@@ -0,0 +1,148 @@
+# Introduce Scope Attributes
+
+This OTEP adds attributes to the Scope.
+
+## Motivation
+
+There are a few reasons why adding Scope attributes is a good idea:
+
+- There are 2 known use cases where Scope attributes can solve specific problems:
+  - Add support for [Meter "short_name"](https://github.com/open-telemetry/opentelemetry-specification/pull/2422),
+    represented as an attribute of Meter's Scope.
+  - Add support for differentiating the type of data emitted from the scopes that belong
+    to different data domains, e.g. profiling data emitted as log records or client-side
+    data emitted as log records needs to be differentiated so that it can be easily
+    routed and processed differently in the backends. We don't have a good way to handle
+    this today. The type of the data can be recorded as an attribute Logger's Scope.
+- It makes Scope consistent with the other primary data types: Resource, Span, Metric,
+  LogRecord.
+
+See additional [discussion here](https://github.com/open-telemetry/opentelemetry-specification/issues/2450).
+
+## Summary
+
+The following is the summary of proposed changes:
+
+- We will extend OpenTelemetry API to allow specifying Scope attributes when obtaining a
+  Tracer, Meter or LogEmitter. Scope attributes will be optional.
+- We will add `attributes` field to the [InstrumentationScope](https://github.com/open-telemetry/opentelemetry-proto/blob/88faab1197a2a105c7da659951e94bc951d37ab9/opentelemetry/proto/common/v1/common.proto#L83)
+  message of OTLP.
+- We will specify that Telemetry emitted via a Scope-ed Tracer, Meter or LogEmitter will
+  be associated with the Scope's attributes.
+- We will specify that OTLP Exporter will record the attributes in the
+  InstrumentationScope message.
+- We will create a section for Scope attributes' semantic conventions in
+  the specification.
+
+## Internal details
+
+### API Changes
+
+`Get a Tracer` API will be extended to add the following parameter:
+
+```
+- `attributes` (optional): Specifies the instrumentation scope attributes to associate
+  with emitted telemetry.
+```
+
+`Get a Metter` API will be extended to add the following parameter:
+
+```
+- `attributes` (optional): Specifies the instrumentation scope attributes to associate
+  with emitted telemetry.
+```
+
+`Get LogEmitter` SDK call will be altered to the following:
+
+```
+Accepts the instrumentation scope name and optional version and attributes and
+returns a LogEmitter associated with the instrumentation scope.
+```
+
+Since the attributes are optional this is a backwards compatible change.
+
+### OTLP Changes
+
+The InstrumentationScope message in OTLP will be modified to add 2 new fields:
+attributes and dropped_attributes_count:
+
+```protobuf
+message InstrumentationScope {
+  string name = 1;
+  string version = 2;
+  repeated KeyValue attributes = 3;
+  uint32 dropped_attributes_count = 4;
+}
+```
+
+This change is backwards compatible from OTLP's interoperability perspective. Recipients
+of old OTLP versions will not see the Scope attributes and will ignore them, which we
+consider acceptable from interoperability perspective. This is aligned with our general
+stance on what happens when telemetry sources _add_ new data which old recipients
+don't understand: we expect the new data to be safely ignored.
+
+## Attribute Value Precedence
+
+If the same attribute is specified both at the Span/Metric/LogRecord and at the Scope
+then the attribute value at Span/Metric/LogRecord takes precedence.
+
+This rule applies to non-OTLP exporters in SDKs, to conversions from OTLP to non-OTLP
+formats in the Collector and to OTLP recipients of data that need to interpret the
+attributes in the received data.
+
+## Exporting to non-OTLP
+
+SDK's non-OTLP Exporters and Collector's exporter to formats that don't have a concept
+that is equivalent to the Scope will record the attributes at the most suitable place
+in their corresponding format, typically at the Span, Metric or LogRecord equivalent.
+
+## Prior art and alternatives
+
+The [Meter "short_name" PR](https://github.com/open-telemetry/opentelemetry-specification/pull/2422)
+had an alternate approach where the "short_name" was added as the only attribute to the
+InstrumentationScope. This OTEP's proposal generalizes this and allows arbitrary
+attributes which allows them to be used for use cases.
+
+Differentiating the type of data emitted from the scopes that belong to different data
+domains can be alternatively done by recording attributes on the Span, Metric or LogRecord.
+However, this will be less efficient since it will require the same attributes to be
+specified repeatedly on the wire. It will be also cumbersome to require the callers
+to always specify such attributes when creating a Span, Metric or a LogRecord as
+opposed to specifying them once when obtaining the Trace, Meter or LogEmitter.
+
+## Examples
+
+### Usage in Code
+
+The following is an example usage where LogEmitter is used to emit client-side
+log records (pseudocode follows):
+
+```
+// obtain a logger once, at startup.
+logger = LogEmitterProvider.GetLogEmitter("mylibrary", "1.0.0", KeyValue("otel.clientside", true))
+
+// somewhere later in the code
+logger.emit(LogRecord{Body:"click", Attributes:...})
+```
+
+### LogRecord Multiplexing
+
+Here is an example usage where LogRecords are used to represent profiling data,
+client-side events and regular logs. The Scope attribute is used for multiplexing
+and routing the LogRecords:
+
+![LogRecord Multiplexing](img/0201-scope-multiplexing.png)
+
+## Open questions
+
+- Should we allow/encourage recording Span/Metric/LogRecord attributes at the Scope level?
+  The alternate is to disallow this and have completely separate set of semantic
+  conventions that are allowed for Scope attributes only.
+- Can all existing APIs in all languages be safely modified to ensure the addition
+  of the optional attributes is not a breaking change? (It should be safe, since we did
+  a very similar change when we [introduced the Scope](https://github.com/open-telemetry/opentelemetry-specification/pull/2276))
+
+## Future possibilities
+
+If this OTEP is accepted we need to then introduce the relevant semantic conventions
+that will make the 2 use cases [described earlier](#motivation) possible.