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

Action on tracestate header larger than 512 is confusing #175

Closed
rghetia opened this issue Sep 10, 2018 · 2 comments
Closed

Action on tracestate header larger than 512 is confusing #175

rghetia opened this issue Sep 10, 2018 · 2 comments
Labels
enhancement The specification works as-is but could be improved.
Milestone

Comments

@rghetia
Copy link

rghetia commented Sep 10, 2018

According to spec at one place it says ignore it (I think it means drop it) and other place it says it is up to the tracer.

"The length of a combined header MUST be less than or equal to 512 bytes. If the length of a combined header is more than 512 bytes it SHOULD be ignored."

"If the tracestate value has more than 512 characters, the tracer CAN decide to forward the tracestate. When propagating tracestate with the excessive length - the assumption SHOULD be that the receiver will drop this header."

  1. Which one should it be?
    a. Drop entirely
    b. forward the most recent up to 512 char.
    c. forward (512 has no meaning then)
  2. If the received header is > 512 then should traceparent be dropped as well? Probably not. But clarification in the spec would be good.
@SergeyKanzhelev SergeyKanzhelev added the enhancement The specification works as-is but could be improved. label Sep 10, 2018
@SergeyKanzhelev SergeyKanzhelev added this to the 3. FPWD milestone Sep 10, 2018
@SergeyKanzhelev
Copy link
Member

first statement is about parsing - second about propagation further after modification. It is totally not clear from spec - you are correct.

This concern should be resolved with @yurishkuro proposal here: #109

@SergeyKanzhelev
Copy link
Member

Closing in favor of #239

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement The specification works as-is but could be improved.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants