►
From YouTube: CNCF OpenTelemetry Community 2020-03-10
Description
CNCF OpenTelemetry Community 2020-03-10
A
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
C
C
D
D
H
D
D
If
in
corporate
in
the
span
data,
it's
probably
not
gonna
be
efficient,
we
want
single
resource
pass
to
for
the
batch
of
span.
So
I
think.
If
the
pass
is
an
argument,
then
batch
processor
can
either
cache
it
or
something
I
put
some
solution
there
and
it
can
export
to
the
exporter
single
common
resource
for
the
batch
of
spam.
I
see.
H
Talking
about
and
stuff,
probably
probably
we
should.
We
should
read
more
carefully
what
you
have
there
I
do
not
understand
exactly
why
it's
not
necessarily
optimal,
but
I
do
see
that
in
my
open
TLP
implementation
I
have
to
construct
the
map
resource
to
spend,
and
let
me
make
all
some
troubles
so
I
do
agree.
There
may
be
other
better
solutions.
I
H
One
of
the
things
that
we
have
a
limitation
that
there
is
only
one
resource,
spam
per
per
tracer
provider,
but
there
is
no
limitation
that
running
binary
cannot
have
two
or
three
instances
of
the
trace
provider
yeah,
and
there
is
not
also
a
limitation
that
is
spam.
Processor
cannot
be
attached
to
to.
H
D
H
H
D
H
H
With
the
latest
Oh,
tap
I
think
is
83
I'm,
adding
the
concept
of
my
instrumentation
library,
information,
which
may
share
the
same
concern
as
results,
because
essentially
inside
the
resource,
you
have
multiple
instrumentation
libraries
that
are
producing
spans.
So
you
do.
You
do
need
to
create
the
same
mapping.
D
H
J
H
H
K
H
H
L
C
H
L
C
For
the
for
at
least
the
second
one,
I
think
you
still
haven't
reviewed
it,
and
you
said
you
would
last
week
to
try
put
it
there
for
the
first
one.
We
discussed
it
in
pretty
good
detail
and
I
thought
came
to
a
conclusion
either
last
week
or
the
week
before,
but
it
doesn't
seem
like
there's
been
any
comment
or
approval
on
it
too,
to
say
that
so
it
kind
of.
M
M
Sure,
but
we
need
to
have
it
as
part
of
this
PR
or
another
PR.
You
know
because
I
mean
at
this
moment
it
barely
mentions
I
mean
like
the
current
before
you
changes.
It
says
that
it
says
that
there
are
two
operations,
but
it's
not
very
clear,
and
so,
if
we,
you
know,
as
which
fine
to
keep
them
as
two
operations,
we
need
to
make
that
super
clear.
Anyway,
let's
discuss
that's
definitely
on
the
if
itself
yeah
I'm
not
going
against
their
premium,
but
trying
to
be
more
pier.
Yes,
madam.
L
F
H
H
N
O
And
resource
right,
yeah,
yes,
so
my
only
concern
was
yeah
I
didn't
so
my
only
concern
was
there
is.
How
do
we
distinguish
my
instrumentation
adapters
and
library
instrument
itself?
So
was
it
like
yeah,
maybe
I
haven't
lost
between
instrumenting
library
and
Instrumentation
library
and
what's
limited
at
SDK,
available.
H
Currently,
currently,
there
is
no
way
to
specify
the
instrumented
library,
so
currently
the
name
tracer
allows
you
to
only
special
instrumentation
library,
the
one
that
instrumented
makes
the
instrumentation.
So
it
keep
the
plants
or
something
I
was
thinking
about
this
and
I
try
to
kind
of
resolve
this
with
a
component
in,
but
it
didn't
get
too
much
traction.
O
J
H
Of
these
in
the
in
the
in
the
resource,
I
think
what
we
put
in
the
resource
is
the
name
of
the
like
the
library
itself,
which
is
the
open
telemetry
in
the
resource.
What
we
will
put
is
will
put
the
telemetry
library,
not
the
adapter,
not
the
instrument.
Another
is
limitation,
not
an
instrumented
lab.
We
will
put
the
telemetry
the
producer
of
the
telemetry,
which
is
most
of
the
time,
is
open,
telemetry
and
the
language.
N
Yeah,
that's
exactly
about
the
PR
that
I
linked
if
one
I'm
for
is
about
and
I
think
we
should
be
careful
not
to
mix
up
things
here,
so
you
have
to
odep
84
about
adding
the
tracer
name,
AKA
instrumentation
library,
yes,
and
we
should
look
into
that.
One
separately.
I
already
proved
it
by
the
way,
because
now
it
seems
pretty
fine
and
clear
to
me
at
least
then
there
is
the
telemetry
library
resource
attribute,
which
I
renamed
from
library,
which
was
highly
ambiguous
to
telemetry,
SDK
and
I.
N
To
me,
it
is
quite
clear
if,
if
someone
comes
up
with
with
even
more
precise
description,
I'd
be
open
to
edit,
but
I
think
that,
at
least
with
the
examples
to
two
lines
below
it
is
really
clear
because
I
say
that
the
default
open,
telemetry
SDK,
if
that
one
is
used,
one
should
use
open,
telemetry
and
so
on
and
for
the
instrumented
library
or
application
or
service
I
think
we
should
of
man
issue
and
and
continue
this
as
a
separate
discussion,
so
that
things
don't
get
mixed
up.
Yeah.
H
O
N
N
Perfect-
and
there
was
one
thing
that
URI
or
post
defect
that
I
don't
make
it
a
compulsory
attribute
I,
actually
think
it
should
be
required,
but
I
didn't
want
to
true
I,
don't
know
what
the
term
is
called
to
sneak
the
change
into
APR.
That
is
called
clarify.
Something
so
I
will
do
that
in
a
in
a
follow
up.
Pr,
okay,.
H
M
The
way
it
has
three
reviews,
so
it
should
be
good
to
go.
I
think
that
the
latest
from
what
they
remember
last
week,
Ludmila
had
some
questions
about
it,
but
you
know
she's,
not
she's
awfully
nice
or
something
so
yeah
I
suggest
we
just
merged
approvals,
and
one
suggestion
just
mark
a
lot
of
these
conversations.
As
result.
O
Sounds
reasonable
and
only
it
will
be
a
while
and
I
think
one
of
the
suggestion
I
have
for
symmetrical
convention
PRS
or
like
documentation
in
general.
If
you
start
tracking
all
the
implementations
of
the
semantic
convention,
it
will
make
life
for
everybody
easier
because
we
don't
know
like
this
is
magic
animation
already
implemented,
and
this
is
how
like
it's
the
to
student
practice
and
I
think
some
concerns
people
have
is
it
looks
great
on
paper?
Do
we
actually
can
can
be
actually
implemented?
O
O
N
M
N
M
B
Thanks
for
digging
it
up,
actually
it's
been
there
for
a
couple
months,
I
believe
already.
We
need
a
decision
on
this.
We
we
can't
move
forward
with
the
protocol.
Implementation
we
decide
is
basically
the
question
is
whether
we're
using
G
RPC
resolved
codes
as
the
indication
of
whether
the
request
should
be
retried
or
no
or
we
use
as
it
was
previously
in
the
protocol.
Please
explicit
flag
to
indicate
very
tribal
or
non-returnable
errors.
H
B
H
Is
what
we
need
to
clarify
we're
not
going
to
use
G
RPC
codes
in
our
pipeline?
We
our
pipeline.
We
have
the
three
values
that
we
propose
this.
This
PR
is
mostly
like
if
you
are
using
GRDC
between
as
a
transport
between
the
client
and
the
server.
Here
is
how
you
transform
the
G
RPC
codes
in
from
work
home
retired
by
the
nori
tribal
errors,
yep.
B
H
B
H
From
from
Christian
comment,
that
was
not
that
clear,
but
anyway,
I
think
I.
Think
as
I
said,
this
is
how
I
I
think
is
possible,
because
otherwise
there
are
a
lot
of
these
errors.
Come
from
the
framework,
for
example
the
owl
think,
if
you,
if
you
use
G
RPC
and
you
set
up
walls
or
whatever
out
mechanism,
you
have
you'll,
get
a
permission
deny
or
on
a
dedicated
error
without
having
without
your
code
running
so
you
don't
have
to
you.
Don't
have
a
way
to
send
back
in
the
information
right.
B
H
B
H
B
H
Haven't
find
this
very
useful
because
nobody
was
writing
is
expired.
Now
now
that
everyone
for
betta
have
to
write.
This
is
the
time
when
we
find
this
kind
of
yes,
thanks
for
filing
that
anyway,
let's
continue
the
discussion
there.
Please
everyone,
please
focus
and
reduce
and
provide
comment.
This
would
be
very
useful.
H
H
J
E
J
H
J
We
just
don't
only
have
three
of
the
official
ones
by
the
way,
I
want
to
add
a
couple
there's
also
one
on
metrics
and
which
is
more
of
a
philosophical,
like
statement
which
I
updated
last
night,
but
it's
not
quite
ready,
so
I'm
not
gonna
plug
it
right
now.
That's
number
88
and
I
think
that
most
people
have
agreed
to
it.
It's
just
not
clear
so
I'll
keep
working
on
it.
Okay,.
H
H
L
A
K
A
H
One
of
the
property
that
we
try
to
have
was
described
in
a
way
that
is
not
so
that's
this
for
me,
after
one
time,
property
of
property
of
the
request,
every
request
has
a
different
so
applying
that
logic.
For
me,
that's
a
property
of
the
request,
so
it's
probably
belonging
to
correlation
I
context
and
then
enhance
will
be
associated
with
all
the
spans
that
are
produced
during
that
execution,
and
we
can
associate
as
exemplars,
for
example,
for
for.
H
I
H
So,
and
that's
that's
why,
by
the
way?
That's
why,
with
the
correlation
context,
that's
why
I'm
I
was
pointing
to
that,
because
you
also
proposed
to
add
that
as
a
spam
attribute
and
I
think
I
think
it's,
we
add
it
to
the
correlation
context
and
then
you
will
get
automatically
added
to
all
the
spans
okay.
It's
your
point.
L
P
N
H
Q
Q
P
F
R
G
Just
to
jump
in
line
I
was
asking
about
beta
blockers,
but
I
think
one
thing
I
want
to
emphasize
is
for
me
getting
the
the
beta
started.
We
have
an
ideal.
Of
course
we
don't
want
to
make
breaking
changes
after
we
start
the
beta,
but
the
main
point
of
starting
the
beta
is
to
make
sure
we
have
something
that
works
into
n,
that
people
can
start
using
and
start
getting
like
feedback
from
building
instrumentation
and
and
checking
out
the
results
in
a
back-end
system.
G
So
if
we
do
have
some
design
changes,
we
have
to
push
out
past
or
16th
or
people
are
trying
to
make
trade-offs
to
figure
out
what
they
should
work
on
to
get
the
beta
at
the
door.
It's
really
about
getting
that
basic
and
and
pipeline
out
the
door,
so
you've
got
an
API
for
some
API
for
metrics.
The
trace
API
is
like
I,
think
very
lockdown.
At
this
point,
an
SDK
for
those
things,
exporters
a
way
to
talk
to
the
collector
and
then
collector
exporters
to
talk
to
the
backend.
G
Q
K
P
I
see
a
lot
of
what
real
hard
going
on
with
everyone
and
it's
normal,
its
deadlines
get
closer.
It
gets
more
stressed,
but
I
think
people
are
honestly
like
doing
some
really
awesome
work,
but
we
have
to
be
realistic.
About,
like
yeah,
is
remaining
for
the
timeline
because,
as
it
gets
closer,
there
is
less
and
less
yeah.
P
L
H
The
past
that,
if
you
don't
have
these
deadlines,
we
we
are
reluctant
on
on
making
decisions.
Sometimes,
let's
have
some
deadlines,
and
maybe
maybe,
as
Ted
said,
we
we
should
revisit
a
bunch
of
these,
and
we
should
not
be
worried
to
break
some
of
the
things
during
the
beta
phase
yeah
declaring
in
beta.
We
still
can
break
some
of
the
things
we
find
critical
mistakes
in
our
design
choices.
Yeah.
H
G
Quite
clear
to
me:
we've
we've
passed
the
good
enough
mark
with
our
designs.
I
have
some
question
around
the
remaining
metrics
work.
Cuz
I
think
that's
an
API,
that's
more
new
and
so
I
know.
We
definitely
have
more
ideas
about
what
a
better
metrics
API
would
be,
but
it
seems
like
on
that
front.
We've
also
hit
the
good
enough
mark
for
launching
so
I
actually
wouldn't
mind
an
update
about
the
current
state
of
the
metrics
discussion.
So
you
know
that's
an
ongoing
I.
H
J
So
I
agree
that
label
set
is
the
last
significant
change
from
a
sort
of
what's
going
to
break
if
the
users
using
this,
but
we
are,
we
already
have
plans
to
introduce
to
to
introduce
some
new
instrument
types
and
like
those
can
be
done
after
the
beta
that,
for
example,
yeah
and
and
by
the
way
the
go.
Sdk
is
completely
out
of
sync.
J
N
Are
me
yes,
I
brought
that
up.
I
just
noticed
that
we
don't
have
any
restrictions
there
like
at
all,
defined
to
be
Spector,
some
limitations
that
impose
restrictions
on
their
own.
For
example,
the
Java
SDK
limits
attribute
he'll,
end
to
255
characters
and
so
on,
but
I
think
we
should
really
find
common
restriction.
They
finished
in
the
spec
so
that
people
can
rest
assured
that
what
they're
doing
confronts
with
spec,
because
the
limits
that
GABA
imposes,
for
example,
are
not
documented
in
Ireland
and
not
really
expected
to
be
stable.
H
I
do
think
it's
possibly
Jewish
as
well
about
the
character
set,
the
question
that
we
need.
We
need
to
have
an
encoding
for
all
these
things.
If
we
say
something
is
string
to
define
an
encoding
for
all
these
strings
because
otherwise
a
lot
of
pf8,
but
that
may
not
be
the
case
if
we
do
truncation
or
stuff,
we
may
break
the.
H
J
H
J
Last
week
I
commented
my
colleagues
that
we
were
talking
about
encoding
issue,
there's
an
Unicode
and
stuff,
and
that
meant
we
were
at
the
ends.
So
that's
the
next
thing
here,
I
I
know
from
working
in
logging
systems
that
that
people
are
going
to
dump
every
encoding
in
the
Sun
of
the
Sun
into
the
log.
So
eventually
this
solution
won't
hold
up,
I
think
but
I'm
happy
with
it.
For
now,
I.
H
J
H
G
B
Think
we
already
have
a
few
people
working
on
this,
mostly
full
time.
I,
don't
think
it's.
There
is
a
way
to
actually
split
it
into
more
ways
for
others
to
help
I
I,
don't
think
we
need
help
for
other
issues,
but
for
this
particular
thing,
I
don't
think
having
more
people
will
help
our
should
be
to
deliberate,
faster.
H
G
And
speaking
of
help,
even
though
q
con
Europe
has
been
punted-
and
that
was
where
we
originally
wanted
to
do
a
kick
off
with
like
open
telemetry
workshops,
we
are
planning,
we
don't
have
exact
plans
yet
over
at
light
step.
But
we
are
planning
on
trying
to
continue
to
organize
up
in
telemetry
workshops
and
training
sessions
to
just
both
get
an
understanding
of
like
how
what
needs
to
get
worked
on
an
open
telemetry.
H
The
way
it
would
be
nice
for
people
if
we
can
organize,
maybe
a
meet-up
here
in
San
Francisco.
We
are
a
bunch
of
people
in
San,
Francisco
and
the
reason
I'm
proposing
here
because
a
lot
of
people,
but
everyone
can
do
that
in
in
their
areas.
I
think
we
can
have
a
meet
up
with
people
more
contributors
and
users
more
informal
than
a
workshop,
or
anything
it's
just
like
chats
and
stuff.
That
would
be
great
I
guess.