►
From YouTube: 2022-09-09 meeting
Description
cncf-opentelemetry@cncf.io's Personal Meeting Room
B
C
I
think
we're
not
sure
what
else
is
gonna
come.
Maybe
josh
might
get
here
as
well.
C
A
C
Now,
yes,
okay,
very
good
in
that
you're
right
in
terms
of
the
first
mean
changing
the
meeting
time.
We
say
we
want
to
try
to
do.
That
would
make
sense
here
for
us.
B
C
B
A
We're
actively
discussing
this
one,
so
I
believe
this
is
necessary.
A
Yeah
yeah.
Definitely
we
need.
We
need
a
resolution
on
this
one.
This
is
actually
blocking
the
release
so
very
important
to
resolve.
D
C
B
B
But
what
was
it
he
mentioned?
He's
saying
it's
not
it's
not
elegant.
I
agree
it's
not
elegant,
but
I
like
I'm,
not
convinced
that
we
want
to
shoot
for
elegance
here.
B
C
So
how
do
you
think
we
should
from
a
standpoint,
should
we.
B
D
C
D
So
just
tell
him
you
know
like
we
feel
it's
not
a
big
deal,
we
don't
we
consider
it's
not
something
we
want
to
do
but
feel
express
any.
You
know
remaining
doubts
or
anything
in
case
you
know
you
still
feel
like.
We
should
work
on
this.
A
A
It's
not
enough
to
say
that
I
don't
agree
right.
You
need
to
bring
arguments
in
favor
of
your
position.
You
may
convince
yeah.
So
if
you
have
additional
arguments
in
favor
of
what
you're
proposing
please
comment
and
then
we'll
reconsider
right,
if
you
just
say
no,
I
don't
agree.
Okay,
you
don't
agree,
then
I
don't
agree.
D
B
Yeah,
I
feel
like
maybe
like,
like
what
all
they
feel
like.
It
doesn't
seem
to
be
significant
and,
and
if
we
see
like
additional
information
in
the
future
that
might
change
our
position,
we're
having
to
revisit
this.
A
Yeah
yeah
now
I
think
it's
fine
to
say
that
so
far,
based
on
the
information
provided,
we
believe
this
is
not
necessary.
We're
closing
the
issue.
If
you
have
information
to
the
contrary,
please
comment
and
we'll
consider
reopening
it.
I
think
that's
completely
fine,
not
a
problem.
D
A
A
C
Yeah
we
talked
last
time
about
certainly
trying
to
provide
feedback
based
upon
our
assessment
here
and
yeah
be
good.
If
we
had
canned
comments
as
well.
C
C
This
is,
this
is
good
anything
else
we
can
think
of
here.
A
C
C
B
B
A
A
C
A
C
B
B
B
D
No
not
no
go
back
the
one
before.
C
A
D
C
All
right,
just
close,
it.
C
A
Yeah
so
yeah
they're,
looking
for
a
text
format
to
represent
traces,
which
I
think
we
could
say
this
is
another
way
of
saying
we
need.
I
think
we
have
an
issue
open
there
about
otlp
having
a
textured
presentation
or
something
like
that.
Let
me
see
if
I
can
find
it.
A
It's
there
is
one
for
jason,
but
I
think
there
is
also
another
one
which
says:
what
is
the
the
otlp
what's
the
way
to
record
or
tlp
files,
or
something
like
that,
not
specifically
just
json
but
kind
of
more
generic?
Oh
interesting
didn't
know
that
never
said
yeah.
Let's
let
me
see
if
I
can
find
that.
B
And
I
have
a
question
in
donald
trump
javascript.
I
remember
folks
asked
about
hey
once
we
have
this
text
format
should
console
exporter,
be
changed
and
rebranded.
Currently
it's
branded
as
a
very
simple
exporter
that
helps
you
to
understand
how
things
work
and
maybe
for
local
development,
and
nobody
is
recommending
people
to
use,
console
export
and
rely
on
the
output
format
for
some
containers
down
things
to
a
file
and
rely
on
the
agent
to
pick
them
up.
But
if
we
have
a
standard
format,
should
we
rebrand
the
console
exporter
to
be?
C
A
A
C
A
C
A
Yeah,
you
can
mark
it
as
a
need
more
info,
and
but
it's
it
seems
it's
a
sign
to
me.
I
will
take
a
look
anyway.
Yeah.
D
B
C
D
B
Because
for
semantic
convention,
we've
been
using
this
tag
by
telling
people
hey,
what
do
you
suggest?
It
makes
sense,
but
we
don't
have
experts
here.
We
cannot
just
simply
approve
it,
because
we
in
center
pr.
We
cannot
even
reveal
that
you
need
to
find
someone
who
have
expertise
in
this
document
or
you're
blocked
by
a
meta
issue,
and
you
should
wait
for
that
issue
to
be
resolved.
You're
happy
like
if
you're
happy
you
can
contribute
to
that
issue.
So
we
just
need
more
info
for
for
all
kinds
of
things.
C
D
A
B
D
A
A
A
D
A
So
I
I
guess
the
net
result
of
maybe
this
results
in
having
some
wording
added
to
the
auth
specification,
which
says
that
it
should
be
a
configurable
option
on
the
senders
or
something
like
that.
I.
B
Actually
so
yeah
the
coming
coming
to
my
next
question.
If
we
allow
people
to
specify
what's
the
maximum
size
of
bytes
that
you
allow
to
send
in
one
single
request,
are
we
going
to
do
that
for
other
protocols
like
libking
and
jager,
and
are
we
going
to
find
other
limitations?
For
example,
although
you
don't
exceed
the
total
number
of
bytes,
but
you
exceed
the
total
number
of
cardinality
of
metrics
or
total
number
of
metric
data
points,
or
you
should
limit
the
histogram
buckets.
I
I
think
the
downstream
can
have
many
different
limitations.
B
A
That's
that's
a
good
question.
I
guess
it
shows
that
this
is
debatable
right.
So
probably
again,
this
requires
more
information
or
maybe
a
debate,
and
if
it
requires
more
information
or
a
debate,
do
we
consider
it
an
accepted,
accepted
issue
that
we
need
to
discuss.
So
even
more,
you
know
what
do
we
market
it's
more.
B
C
A
C
B
Assign
it
to
me
and
mark
it
as
need
more
info
I'll,
follow.
C
C
A
Which
one
was
that
I
commented
on
it
hold
on?
I
don't
remember.
A
A
Okay-
I
I
can
reply
to
this.
Can
you
assign
it
to
me
I'll
reply
to
it,
because
I
think
that
there
is
nothing
to
be
done
here,
but
I
will
just
maybe
ask
santosh
to
clarify
what
he
meant.
Maybe
he
meant
something
else.
I'm
misunderstanding
perhaps
I'll
take
this
one
just
assign
to
me.
I
think
there's
nothing
to
do
here,
but
I
may
be
wrong,
so
I
will
ask
him
a
question
and
then
after
that,
maybe
I
will
close
it.
C
All
right
should,
I
say,
need
more
information
or
you
just.
A
A
C
All
right,
so
we're
going
to
say
accepted
that.
C
Okay,
I
think
that's
all
the
ones
for
today.
I
think
it's
a
great
time
as
well.
Anything
else
special
we
need
to
mention
here.