Rename/replace (client|server).socket.(address|port) attributes with network.(peer|local).(address|port).

[trask]

Renames/replaces (client|server).socket.(address|port) attributes with network.(peer|local).(address|port).

Motivation:

• Moving these under network.* makes it clear that these describe the network connection.

• Renaming these to peer and local makes it extra clear that these describe the direct network peer connection. I think enough so that the extra notes are no longer needed:

  When observed from the client side, this SHOULD represent the immediate server peer address.
  When observed from the server side, this SHOULD represent the physical server address.

  When observed from the client side, this SHOULD represent the immediate server peer port.
  When observed from the server side, this SHOULD represent the physical server port.

Removes server.socket.domain. This was for modeling proxies, but this use case could be addressed after stability (e.g. possibly with proxy.*.

Note: I don't think schema transformation is possible for this change.

cc @lmolkova @Oberon00 @AlexanderWert

[AlexanderWert]

... but it does not address the duplication issue ...

Is avoiding duplication a strict guideline that is written down somewhere? I'm asking because I have the feeling that this guideline contributes to some of the confusion in this context of semantic conventions.

I think it also helps by making a slightly clearer separation between the logical client./server. attributes and the physical network.client./network.server. attributes.

I really like that clarity about separation between the logical and physical connection. BUT it gets mixed up and unclear, once we apply the guideline to avoid duplication and have this: network.server.address is recommended but only if different than server.address (and same with client). So, for instrumentation logic and for end users one piece of information (in one attribute e.g. network.server.address) depends on the availability of another piece of information (in another attribute).

Concrete example:

A web-server instrumentation retrieves the IP from the incoming request. Now, where to put that IP, client.address or network.client.address ? Well, it depends on whether the request also contains a Forwarded-For header, right?

So, I'm just wondering how problematic it would actually be if we would just consistently set client/server.* attributes to the logical connection levels, and network.client/server.* attributes to the physical connection level, disregarding the duplication concern?
Does avoiding duplication needs to be a strict rule if there are legitimate semantical reasons for doing so?

Not blocking this PR, this was just on my mind when reflecting the discussions we had around this specific context.

[lmolkova]

So, I'm just wondering how problematic it would actually be if we would just consistently set client/server.* attributes to the logical connection levels, and network.client/server.* attributes to the physical connection level, disregarding the duplication concern?
Does avoiding duplication needs to be a strict rule if there are legitimate semantical reasons for doing so?

I believe the guidance for instrumentations today is:

• server.address: if there is a DNS, use it, otherwise use IP
• server.socket.address: if socket info is available, check if it's not the same as server.address and (if not) set the attribute value
• client.address: if there is a forwarded header, use it, otherwise use direct IP
• client.socket.address: if socket info is available, check if it's not the same as client.address and then (if not) set the attribute value

I.e. server \ client are not logical attributes, but best known - either logical or physical.
Consumers can always use server \ client as the primary source of information and consider *.socket.* attributes as an extra detail.

This way there is no duplication problem and it's still simple to use.

[trask]

I.e. server \ client are not logical attributes, but best known - either logical or physical.

good point 👍

[lmolkova]

I'd like to suggest the following:

• the only socket attribute we have to figure out prior to HTTP stability is server.socket.address since it's the only one used on metrics
• we can still rename server.socket.address to server.ip attribute to describe the best known IP - either of the server or a proxy (it's rarely possible to know the actual IP of the server anyway)
• we can remove all other *.socket.* attributes from HTTP semconv (or all semconv) and they can be added later after stability
  • I believe we need to model them better with symmetrical protocols and see how things will play out with proxies

[EDIT]

Another approach is that we keep physical attributes (with whatever names) and start rendering attribute stability explicitly identifying physical socket attributes as experimental (on spans).

[lmolkova]

I can also imagine a future when we won't want physical connection attributes on HTTP spans. E.g.:

• we have a span per connection measuring connection duration and capturing it's information and how it ends
• we link HTTP spans to connection spans

[trask]

we can still rename server.socket.address to server.ip attribute to describe the best known IP - either of the server or a proxy (it's rarely possible to know the actual IP of the server anyway)

for some reason I'm thinking of server.ip as the IP address of the best known server. the distinction being whether server.ip should be an IP address for server.address, or if it's ok for server.ip to be captured from the socket connection (in which case it may be the IP address of a proxy server)

[trask]

I liked @lmolkova's suggestion above (and I think @Oberon00 made similar previously) about network.local.* and network.peer.*.

I put together a new proposal in diagrams: https://gist.github.com/trask/711f91feda06115353e4e56cfebedf5d

a few notes

• it includes network.local.* and network.peer.*
• it includes proxy.* (but this would only be layered on by instrumentation which is proxy-aware)
• it includes network.(local|peer).port even if it's a duplicate of (client|server).port because I thought it felt right to capture network layer address/port pairs together
• it does not include network.(local|peer).* if there is no corresponding "best known" client/server and so "best known" client/server is captured at the network layer

I think duplication is an orthogonal concern, so would be good to get thoughts on both the modeling, and separately on the duplication.

[trask]

@lmolkova @Oberon00 @AlexanderWert I updated the PR, and the title and description, ptal, thx!

[trask]

I'm thinking that maybe it's not worth trying to incorporate client.ip and server.ip into the HTTP semconv general modeling.

I think server.ip (when captured) should be a resolved IP address for server.address, which means we wouldn't want to use server.ip like in #321 (comment):

or on the client side to capture server.ip from the network connection, which could point to a forward proxy and not be a resolved IP address for server.address.

I think client.ip and server.ip can still be brought into OpenTelemetry, but maybe they will have less significance in OpenTelemetry if we go forward with network.peer.address and network.local.address as proposed in this PR.

Which brings us to the question of whether we should move forward with this PR at all, since one of the drivers for #321 was to try to incorporate client.ip and server.ip.

I still like a few things about this PR:

• moving all the network-layer stuff under network.* making a clear separation. network.* is now the place to go when you need to dig into that layer (and is the stuff you can generally ignore otherwise 😅).
• I didn't like the peer term when it was describing the stuff that you need to care about even before going down to the network layer. But I don't mind it when it's used only for these low-level details. In fact, I maybe even like it, since it lends extra precision to these low-level details (and again, I can generally ignore it 😅).

[AlexanderWert]

I'm thinking that maybe it's not worth trying to incorporate client.ip and server.ip into the HTTP semconv general modeling.
...
I think client.ip and server.ip can still be brought into OpenTelemetry, but maybe they will have less significance in OpenTelemetry if we go forward with network.peer.address and network.local.address as proposed in this PR.

I think that's a valid point for HTTP semconv!
As long as we are not blocking that client/server.ip can be added to OTel attributes registry (and be used for other use cases in the future), a +1 from me on your proposal @trask !
I think, once we dive deeper into more specific logging and security scenarios with OTel, client/server.ip will be needed as attributes, but agree that with your proposal here they are not needed for HTTP semconv.

I still like a few things about this PR:

• moving all the network-layer stuff under network.* making a clear separation. network.* is now the place to go when you need to dig into that layer (and is the stuff you can generally ignore otherwise 😅).
• I didn't like the peer term when it was describing the stuff that you need to care about even before going down to the network layer. But I don't mind it when it's used only for these low-level details. In fact, I maybe even like it, since it lends extra precision to these low-level details (and again, I can generally ignore it 😅).

Also +1 on moving to network.* instead of client/server.socket.*. I agree with both of your points above!

[jmacd]

I like the use of peer and local.

[reyang]

I like the use of peer and local.

+1

[AlexanderWert]

Does option 1 cause a problem for (e.g. HTTP) logs? Logs don't (currently) have an attribute like SpanKind to know which side they are observed from. The high-level attributes are modeled as (client|server|source|destination).*, but it's not clear whether this is beneficial for the network layer attributes.

@trask I think that's fine! I think the logical addresses are more important for logs (e.g. access logs). And depending on certain concrete use cases in the future (e.g. we would explicitly define / document semantic conventions for NGINX access logs), we can still overwrite / precise the explicit meaning of network.peer in that context.

[Oberon00]

we can still overwrite / precise the explicit meaning of network.peer in that context.

IMHO, the network.peer/local attributes should be so low-level and technical that we should never (need to) override them. Specific instructions for how to get these pieces of information (e.g. formatter code, getter to get to the socket, etc.) are fine but even slightly overwriting the meaning should be a no-go for these IMHO.

[joaopgrassi]

But the reverse proxy couldn't report its direct network peers (at least not both on that same HTTP log record):

network.peer.address:  101.102.103.104
network.peer.port:     50101

network.peer.address:  10.11.12.13
network.peer.port:     5678

@trask maybe it's just me not getting it, but in the diagrams you mentioned before https://gist.github.com/trask/711f91feda06115353e4e56cfebedf5d, isn't the last scenario exactly this one? In there you have network.local.address|port describing the server the reverse proxy is talking to and in network.peer.address|port you have the proxy itself. Isn't that modeling all scenarios for logs you mentioned?

Image for context:

[AlexanderWert]

IMHO, the network.peer/local attributes should be so low-level and technical that we should never (need to) override them. Specific instructions for how to get these pieces of information (e.g. formatter code, getter to get to the socket, etc.) are fine but even slightly overwriting the meaning should be a no-go for these IMHO.

@Oberon00 The meaning of network.peer/local is inherently depending on the context perspective, right? In a tracing scenario it's clear because we have the SpanKind that tells us what local is and what peer is.
But, what about a scenario where we report two network connections in a single log entry (e.g. access logs on a reverse proxy (NGINX, etc.), or a load balancer, where we have the incoming request / connection and the downstream connection where the request is being forwarded to). It would be not clear what is local and what is peer. So in this scenario specifying the concrete meaning of network.peer/local is a MUST. So by overwriting I mean specifying which of the two network connections the network.peer/local attributes belong to.

[Oberon00]

You are right, I did not think of a situation where multiple network connections are involved in a single telemetry item (could also happen with spans).

[trask]

specifying which of the two network connections the network.peer/local attributes belong to.

just wanted to mention that this extends beyond network.peer/local.* and is an issue for all network.* attributes (e.g. one network connection could be over ipv4 and the other over ipv6)

[trask]

@trask maybe it's just me not getting it, but in the diagrams you mentioned before https://gist.github.com/trask/711f91feda06115353e4e56cfebedf5d, isn't the last scenario exactly this one? In there you have network.local.address|port describing the server the reverse proxy is talking to and in network.peer.address|port you have the proxy itself. Isn't that modeling all scenarios for logs you mentioned?

this diagram shows what's reported from the server (as opposed to what's reported from reverse proxy). the server only has a single network connection (to the reverse proxy).

if you were emitting telemetry from the reverse proxy itself, you'd have two network connections to deal with (one to the client, and one to the server), and in that case it's not clear which one network.peer.address refers to