-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 253
Replace confusing URI origin with more specific guidance #2463
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
Replace confusing URI origin with more specific guidance #2463
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Pull Request Overview
This PR removes vague references to the RFC 9110 “URI origin” for server.address
and server.port
and replaces them with precise guidance on when to use the request-target host/port versus the Host
/:authority
header or IP address.
- Remove all “URI origin” brief descriptions for
server.address
andserver.port
in YAML models. - Add detailed
note
sections describing HTTP/1.1 absolute-form request-target and header-based fallbacks. - Update documentation tables and footnotes in
http-spans.md
andhttp-metrics.md
to match the new guidance.
Reviewed Changes
Copilot reviewed 4 out of 4 changed files in this pull request and generated 7 comments.
File | Description |
---|---|
model/http/metrics.yaml | Replaced “URI origin” briefs with detailed notes for server.address and server.port . |
model/http/common.yaml | Updated common attributes: removed brief, added notes for matching host/port semantics. |
docs/http/http-spans.md | Updated table entries and footnotes [2]/[3] to remove “URI origin” and add specific host/port guidance. |
docs/http/http-metrics.md | Replaced span and metric tables and footnotes with new wording for server.address and server.port . |
Comments suppressed due to low confidence (1)
model/http/metrics.yaml:197
- Typo: 'absolte-form' should be 'absolute-form'.
is passed in its [absolte-form](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9112.html#section-3.2.2),
@antonfirsov could you please take another look? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM, thanks a lot for addressing this!
#117540) With the merge of open-telemetry/semantic-conventions#2463, we are good to prioritize the contents of the `Host` header in cases no proxy is being used. The PR implements the change for both request and connection traces+metrics. There is a non-negligible risk: actually, we do not and (with the current code structure) can not emit `network.peer.address` for request telemetry, meaning that with `http(s)://x.x.x.x/..` target Uri-s, IP information will be no longer present when a there is a Host header. I believe that most users would still prefer to see the contents of the Host header if there is a mismatch. Others can opt into connection metrics/traces where `network.peer.address` is available.
Related to #2443