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

Clarify Baggage Propagation Limits #108

Closed
dpauls opened this issue Apr 29, 2022 · 1 comment · Fixed by #113
Closed

Clarify Baggage Propagation Limits #108

dpauls opened this issue Apr 29, 2022 · 1 comment · Fixed by #113
Assignees

Comments

@dpauls
Copy link

dpauls commented Apr 29, 2022

The Limits Section in the Baggage Propagation document specifies the following:

  1. A platform MUST propagate all list-members up to at least 64 list-members including any list-members added by the platform.
  2. A platform MUST propagate all list-members including any list-members added by the platform if the resulting baggage-string would be 8192 bytes or less. If the resulting baggage-string would be greater than 8192 bytes, some list-members MAY be dropped until the resulting baggage-string is 8192 characters or less.

It isn't clear to me what is expected the following hypothetical scenario:

  • Baggage has 50 list-members
  • The baggage-string is 10KB

The first limit specification suggests the entire string must be propagated because it contains less than 64 list-members. OTOH, the second limit specification suggests some list-members MAY be dropped. However, doing so contradicts the first requirement, which is labelled as a MUST.

I don't see any size limit to a list-member the way it is defined, which implies that the suggested hypotetical scenario is possible.

Pracitcally speaking, it seems to me that if there is a limit on length is provided, the intent is to allow an implemenation to bound the resources it would need to process a baggage string, if necessary. So, this leads me to believe the intent is to allow the size limit to trump the number of list-members limit.

I'm looking for feedback to confirm my thinking on this. Thanks!

@kalyanaj
Copy link
Contributor

kalyanaj commented Jun 7, 2022

Re-assigning per our discussion in the working group meeting.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants