►
From YouTube: 2023-02-22 meeting
Description
cncf-opentelemetry meeting-2's Personal Meeting Room
B
A
You
can
get
started
with
nav's
topic.
B
Cool
so
yeah
I
spent
a
couple
hours
yesterday
afternoon
and
updated
the
pr
it's.
It
ended
up
being
some
quite
extensive
wording
changes.
So
if
you
want
everyone
wants
to
have
a
look
at
that,
it
really
is
just
reinforcing
what
we
talked.
A
B
B
C
B
Yeah
I'm,
probably
likewise
for
the
sandbox,
so
I
pushed
out
another
PR
yesterday,
when
I
dragged
in
the
latest
or
almost
the
latest
code
from
the
JS
and
contrib
some
of
the
stuff
was
refactored,
so
the
TS
configs
were
renamed
from
es5
DSM,
so
I
needed
to
do
with
some
minor
script
updates
and
then
we've
got
a
couple
of
I'm
dragging
a
couple
more
packages,
so
yeah
just
still
plodding
along
so
I
do
want
to
try
and
get
that
all
up
and
running.
B
D
And
I
can
give
a
quick
update
on
the
log
SDK,
so
I
I
submitted
a
review
yesterday
and
I
talked
I
just
I
reached
out
to
the
contributor
and
there's
they
said
they're
still
working
on
tests.
D
So
it's
not.
The
pr
is
not
finished.
It's
still
in
progress
for
now
I
offered
to
help,
and
they
said
that
they
didn't
feel
like
they
needed
help
at
the
moment
that
they
still
had
a
lot
of
a
lot
of
work
to
do
with
the
tests,
but
they
were
refactoring.
D
A
I
think
before
the
events
I
think
yesterday,
we
discussed
a
couple
things
right.
I
think
we
need
exporter.
Is
exporter
also
something.
C
B
A
A
Okay,
okay
and
and
the
log
attribute
with
support
for
a
map
as
a
value
value
type
that
also
you
need
to
implement
before
you
can
do
the
events
SDK
events
API
doesn't
need
it,
but
events
SDK
would
need
that.
C
D
A
Are
you
right
it?
It
can
be
a
type
specifically
only
in
the
logistic
event,
SDK,
where,
where
you
you
kind
of
map
it
to
a
nested
attribute
only
in
the
logistic,
the
rest
of
the
packages,
you
know,
don't
need
it.
Yeah.
D
B
A
Yeah,
actually,
the
log
attribute
it's
better
added
to
the
log
SDK
and
not
to
the
events
SDK,
because
it's
it's
part
of
the
log
spec
yeah
I,
think
you're
right
yeah.
B
Yeah
yeah
it'd
just
be
like.
We
create
a
log
attributes
interface
that
extends
the
existing
attributes.
That
gives
the
ability
to
have
that
key
value
map
listed.
B
Should
work
and
that
way
in
theory
it's
Backward
Compatible
but
I
think
once
it's
created,
you
should
be
allowed
in
theory,
then
pass
a
log
attributes
to
anything.
It
takes
an
attribute
and
it.
B
A
I
was
just
thinking,
is
it
everywhere?
We
pass
an
attribute,
we'll
now
pass
a
locker,
but
it's
probably
only
inside
the
log
record
attributes
right.
Let's
say:
if
we
look
at
the
instrumentation
scope,
attributes
I,
don't
think
the
spec
would
allow.
B
Well,
but
the
the
the
issue
with
typescript
is
the
fact
that
the
log
attributes
will
implement
the
attributes
interface.
You
can
pass
it
to
it,
it'll
be
fine,
it's
not
exclusive,
saying
it.
Thou
must
only
have
these
properties,
it
says.
If
you've
got
these
fine
I'll
take
it,
they
just
won't
process
them
most
likely.
C
D
What's,
what's
the
status
of
the
the
semantic
conventions.
C
A
Pr
in
the
spec
repo
I
was
just
waiting
for
some
of
these
things
settle,
but
maybe
I
I
should
go
ahead.
Yeah,
okay,
I
yeah.
A
Okay,
let
me
raise
the
pr
and
based
on
the
comments,
or
do
you
do
you
want
to
discuss
with
the
semantic
conventions,
sick
folks,
first,
to
get
some
some
feedback.
D
D
B
B
There's
a
separate
semantic
convention
working
group,
though
there
was
a
bunch
of
emails.
Okay,
it's
now
called
end
user
working.
No,
it's
not
the
one!
There.
D
A
D
D
A
D
Namespace
I
would
just
like
to
get
a
sense.
You
know
when
we
open
this
PR
with
the
event
semantic
conventions
or
if
how
much
pushback
we're
gonna
get
from
people.
B
B
Where
do
we
put
it?
Yeah.
A
Let
me
just
post
a
message
in
the
in
the
slack
Channel
today
itself
and
see
if
anyone
responds.
A
Exclude
the
the
varying
resource
part
in
in
that
PR,
because
that's
something
the
spec
itself
doesn't
support
So,
except
that
part
I
I
was
going
to
put
everything
else
so
I'll
at
least
start
working
on
that
and
I'm
not
super
clear
what
what
we
want
to
get
from
from
the
from
this
working
group,
but
I
can
post
a
general
comment
saying
if
there
is
any
general
feedback
they
can.
Let
us
know.
C
D
And
I
think
you
know
I
think
it
it'd
be
maybe
good
as
the
next
next
step
like.
If,
if
like,
we
get
okay
with
like
people
that
this
is,
you
know
like
the
structure
and
and
kind
of
the
direction
we're
going
is
good.
Then
I
think
we
could
start
thinking
about
putting
together
a
working
group
from
mobile,
and
that
group
would
start
working
on
semantic
conventions
for
for
mobile,
based
on
what
we've
done
in
browser.
A
Yeah
on
that
Json
have
you
looked
at
that
Excel
sheet
further.
A
A
Actually
tigran
sent
me
a
message:
I
I'm,
seeing
now
that
he
he
has
a
conflict.
So
maybe
we
could
try
and
reschedule
this.
B
Maybe
keep
the
Tuesday
one
if
that
one
works
and
drop
this
one.
A
Yeah
that
works
for
me
yeah.
Let
me
let
me
ask
him
like
I,
think
we
need
somebody
from
the
TC
on
a
regular
basis.
I
think
that'll
be
very
helpful.
C
D
A
All
right
short
meeting
great
bye.