[RFC] wip: data_stream - stage 2

[roncohen]

Moving this to stage 2

Preview the RFC

[webmat]

Thanks for opening this @roncohen. Another quick initial change we can do here, is add this PR to the list of "RFC Pull Requests" at the end of the document.

[webmat]

Let's instead add these as a separate YML file at rfcs/text/0009/data_stream.yml.

It will require a definition for the field set as well.

The definitions for the fields should instead start from what we had in the table above in the RFC. It's fine to be a bit more terse than in the table though, for example we should only cover the currently expected values for namespace.type, and not mention "we expect values X and Y". The field definitions should also cover the character limitations.

Here's a starting point for the full YML file:

- name: data_stream
  title: Data Stream
  short: TODO
  description: TODO
  fields:

    - name: type
      level: extended
      type: keyword
      example: logs
      description: >
        A description

        with multiple paragraphs

        requires a 'short' description as well.
      short: A short version of the description.
    - name: dataset
# ...

[webmat]

@exekias Do you know who will take this one over for Ron?

[ruflin]

@webmat 🤚

[ruflin]

@webmat @ebeahan I updated the fields.yml. Anything else needed here?

[ebeahan]

Thanks, @ruflin, for taking over authorship and moving this forward!

Here's what I see as outstanding:

• An example source document or two in the Source document section. This proposal's additions are straight-forward, but it's a useful aid to demonstrate how the proposed fields are intended to be used.
• Identify the new RFC sponsor and capture in the People section.

[ruflin]

@ebeahan Updated, let me know if this works.

[ebeahan]

LGTM 👍

I'll adjust the advancement date prior to merging.

[ruflin]

@ebeahan Thanks for getting this in. By now there is also a blog post around this that we can reference / link in the future: https://www.elastic.co/blog/an-introduction-to-the-elastic-data-stream-naming-scheme Any next steps needs from my end?

[ebeahan]

@ruflin Thanks for sharing the blog post! I think it'd make a great addition to the proposal References section in the next stage.

Let's go ahead and open the next stage's PR, even if the only initial change is updating the stage from 2 to 3. We can use that PR to capture any concerns or feedback that arise.

[ruflin]

Done: #1212