Skip to content
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

[cloud provider] host.id semantics are too broad #739

Open
mx-psi opened this issue Feb 13, 2024 · 3 comments
Open

[cloud provider] host.id semantics are too broad #739

mx-psi opened this issue Feb 13, 2024 · 3 comments

Comments

@mx-psi
Copy link
Member

mx-psi commented Feb 13, 2024

host.id is currently used as a catch-all convention for any sort of ID in cloud providers or machines alike, this makes it difficult to use by vendors to retrieve specific cloud provider IDs.

Currently, a single host will have a single value for host.id; in certain environments you can rely on other cloud. attributes like cloud.platform to understand the specific value within host.id. For example, if cloud.platform is aws_ec2, then implictly this ensures that host.id, if present, will have the AWS EC2 instance id.

Proposals like #576 make it so a single host may have multiple possible values for host.id; this makes it impossible for a vendor to identify the actual meaning of host.id.

Within the OpenTelemetry Github org, these are the current values for host.id other than machine-id:

A solution for this is introducing semantic conventions that are specific to a given cloud provider. For example, we currently have gcp.gce.instance.name and #600 proposes a similar convention for AWS EC2.

@ChrsMark
Copy link
Member

cc @open-telemetry/semconv-system-approvers

@AfreasF5
Copy link

AfreasF5 commented Jul 8, 2024

The challenge with any ID is that an ID is only truly usable in a specific context. Given the existence of a host in multiple contexts. Should we look at host.id as a graph and the variations of the ids as a node in a graph that has a graph id that is shared across the contexts.

@mx-psi
Copy link
Member Author

mx-psi commented Jul 25, 2024

This is something that the Entities SIG should look into before we make progress

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants