From 3663ec9dc382bf1c65de48b53198b16ab7511e64 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Harold Dost Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2024 13:38:39 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] Apply suggestions from code review --- .github/actions/spelling/allow.txt | 1 + rfcs/2024-03-22-20170-trace-data-model.md | 4 ++-- 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/.github/actions/spelling/allow.txt b/.github/actions/spelling/allow.txt index a8cde2cf35a98..d8e3325aad648 100644 --- a/.github/actions/spelling/allow.txt +++ b/.github/actions/spelling/allow.txt @@ -214,6 +214,7 @@ Xperia Yarvik Yifang ZTE +Zipkin Zopo Zync acmecorp diff --git a/rfcs/2024-03-22-20170-trace-data-model.md b/rfcs/2024-03-22-20170-trace-data-model.md index 7515081984faf..c007737b06fd4 100644 --- a/rfcs/2024-03-22-20170-trace-data-model.md +++ b/rfcs/2024-03-22-20170-trace-data-model.md @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ -# RFC - 2024-03-22 - Establish an Internal Trace Model +# RFC 20170 - 2024-03-22 - Establish an Internal Trace Model As of today there is an already existing Log and Metric event model, the purpose is to establish an internal model for describing a trace event. @@ -6,7 +6,7 @@ internal model for describing a trace event. ## Context The [Ingest OpenTelemetry Traces RFC] was accepted, but there was a condition that an [internal trace model] MUST be -estabilished. Meanwhile, there's also the [Accept Datadog Traces RFC] which was estabilished, but +established. Meanwhile, there's also the [Accept Datadog Traces RFC] which was established, but that primarily only works well with the [`datadog_traces` sink]. There was also a previous RFC which was concerned with [validating schemas], but never came attempted to define an event schema. This leaves this RFC to establish that data model.