Trace Context 2022-09-22 > 2022-11-03

[kalyanaj]

Name of your specification

Trace Context Level 2

URL of your specification

https://services.w3.org/htmldiff?doc1=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FTR%2Ftrace-context-1%2F&doc2=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FTR%2F2022%2FWD-trace-context-2-20220929%2F

Do you need a reply by a particular date?

We are looking to get to CR status before end of year

Please point to the results of your own self-review

w3c/trace-context#498

Where and how should the i18n WG raise issues?

https://github.com/w3c/trace-context/issues

Pointer to any explainer for the spec

https://github.com/w3c/distributed-tracing-wg/blob/main/EXPLAINER.md

Other comments

What: The main difference from Trace Context Level 1 (which is already in recommendation status) is the ability to express whether at least a part of the traceID has been randomly (or pseudo-randomly) generated.
Why: This enables downstream systems to use the trace ID for sampling purposes or for sharding purposes.
How: This is achieved by the introduction of a new flag called "Random Trace ID flag". If the newly introduced random-trace-id flag is set, at least the right-most 7 bytes of the trace-id MUST be randomly (or pseudo-randomly) generated.

[kalyanaj]

Thanks @aphillips for the review for Trace Context Level 2.

The three issues filed from this review (https://github.com/w3c/trace-context/issues?q=label%3Ai18n-needs-resolution+) have been addressed/closed/backported to our Level 2 branch. Wanted to check if we can go ahead close this issue. Thanks!

w3c/trace-context#506
w3c/trace-context#507
w3c/trace-context#508

[aphillips]

@kalyanaj Thanks for the pointer. We will close the books on this review. Thanks.